| Bam Bam | 11/04/07 | 6:32am | New Poll Anyone??? |
| Amanda | 11/02/07 | 7:11am | I completely agree Lydia. I feel things like this are of a personal nature. One can make a choice based on their personal needs. |
| Lydia | 11/02/07 | 1:13am | It should be legal, but require major counselling. |
| Amanda | 10/30/07 | 7:16pm | The entire point is that the state of a persons spirit is their own and no one elses. Does anyone Know they have ceased the flag folding recitation at military funerals fior religous reasons? Yep, thats right, one person didn't like it so they took away the words that go with the folds (there are 13) due to trher religious connotations (christian references). This I feel is wrong. Why? Well while it should not be a mandatory thing for every military funeral due to the fact that there are many different people of many different religions in the military, it should not have been taken away from those who wish to have it. I vewi that the same way as this, you should have the power to choose |
| Bam Bam | 10/30/07 | 7:36am | Thomas, thanks for your comment, I enjoyed reading it. I am not expecting anyone to abide by my standards. But, like Amanda said (did I say that?) the Bible is a wonderful book for those who choose to follow it. I would not be following it if I felt as you or Amanda who puts her faith aside. I can't put my faith aside since it guides my life. How my religous boundaries effect other souls is not up to me, I too am not responsible for other souls. I completely understand your faith Thomas, the only difference between you and me is that your faith allows you to say yes to the issue. Mine makes me a party to it, which would make me guilty of sin as described in my earlier email. Don't get me wrong we're all sinners in one way or another, but, that's a big one. If I ut my faith aside evertime I wanted to something I wouldn't be faithful now would I? It's my soul I need to save. Does this finally make sense to anyone? |
| Thomas | 10/30/07 | 7:27am | CalStar, the status of my soul doesn't concern you. As it is, think of all the money I will save by not having to buy my way into Heaven. Since you have chosen to preach at me, I find it only fair that I should return the favor. Translate this: Gnothi Seauton (hint: it is found inscribed at the doors to Ancient Greek temples). Even if you translate it, it is unlikely you will ever understand it. This is not for people who never question anything. You have been thought never to question. The only reason a leader tells his followers never to question does so in order to maintain control. This may be necessary in the military but in religion, this is done to keep people from discovering a greater truth. Those who do not question will never understand. Those who do not seek answers will never achieve enlightenment. The Way of the Boddhisatva by Shantideva makes it clear that what we are is how we perceive ourselves. Carl Jung states that if we see it clearly in our mind, then it is real, even if only for us. I particularly like the writings of Plato.
"That fellow thinks that he knows something, though he does not know it. Whereas I, I do not know what I think that I do. It would seem that I am wiser than he by just that little bit. In fact, I do not think I know what I in fact do not." The words of Socrates (Plato, The Apology)
I especially like the line that Socrates speaks thus, "An unexamined life is not worth having."
I'll wager that you aren't even aware of the history of your Bible. How many languages were the books written in? in addition to Hebrew, what were those languages? Who wrote them? Where did they come from? What books did the Catholic church see fit to remove and why? How many translations are there? Who was Christ? Was Mary really a virgin? Have you ever read the teachings of Christ?
You do realize that based solely on the teachings of Christ, Jesus Christ would regard Christianity as a travesty. The Christian Church is the worst example of what Christ rallied against. It was Christ who called a tax collecter down from a tree and forgave him and then tested him with the tale of the good Samaritan. It was Christ wo insisted that a church was not found in a building but in the heart of those who have faith in the Divine. Christ was also the first man who referred to God as Father (Masculine Principle: by its prescence implies Feminine Principle). Was Christ the son of God? He didn't think so. Would you like to know which passages reveal this?
Did you know that story of Jesus Christ is identical, verbatum, to the story of Horus, who would become Osiris? Did you know that Mary was from Egypt? Did you know that Christ's teachings are virtually identical to the teachings of the Childred of Isis (many scholars believe that Christ was executed for practicing Egyptian magic)? Can you even debate on the same level as myself, Amanda and Bam Bam? If you answer this, it will be with rhetoric and fire and brimstone. That will be all the answer I need. |
| Amanda | 10/30/07 | 5:32am | I actually have expressed religious beliefs but I do not expound upon them at all. As I have stated they are not a part of what I beieve when it comes to a debate like this. I do have a faith I practice, but not everyone veiws the divine,afterlife or any other spiritual matter like I do nor are they wrong if they don't. In short I will not base this argument on my personal beliefs but instead will have to take into the whole of what others believe or do not believe. There are aiethists our there who do not have any sort of belief at all in an after life, a supernatural entity or anything else at all. There are Dowests who only see the Universe as made of energy and they connect with that while not acknowledging any form of god at all. All of these people and ways of beliefr have to be taken into concideration and when I do that I understand I have no right to force my personal believs onto another and voting against assisted dying would do just that. My beliefs are mine and I can neither prove nor disprove them just like anyone else. Ergo they don't belong in this argument at all. For me instead it is a question of just how far into a persons personal life should I be allowed? How much control should I have over what a docotr does and what right do I have to prevent someone from seeking aid should they need it in this manner. As a single soul on a journey I realize that I have no right at all. I am not responcible for anothers soul and cannot be. It is theirs and theirs alone. Therefor my personal religious convictions are out of this..period. Would I have a DNR, only if the damage is so bad that I would be in a vegitative state. Would I choose death with dignity? Quite frankly I don't know..I have never beenn in that much pain so until I am dying with that sort of death I cannot in all truth answer that. What I can say is that I want that option and believe others should have it available. I may or may not choose it, but neither on religious principle or personal idealism can I stand in the way of someone else and their right to choose what to do with their lives, and yes this is our lives. The bible is a wondwerful book but like anything else it only speaks to those who choose to follow. The christian way is by no means 'the only way' and should not be used to define what others do. |
| CalStar | 10/29/07 | 8:52pm | Once again, I must intercede. It seems the argument of beliefs is reaching a new context. Amanda clearly states she has no belief in specific religious entities (sins, the devil, etc...) Although in the same breathe she states a belief in an after-life or existance. That is a form of faith. A true non-believer would clearly state that life ends when a person dies, no after-life...no resurrection...no heaven or hell. So, it almost seems to me that you are persecuting BamBam for forcing others to believe in the laws of God, while you yourself stress your beliefs (and made up laws) upon others in a forum dealing with a social issue. Her words are no more forceful than yours, in fact hers are more sustainable to those of conscience. I also see the argument has now gone to the question of wether or not life actually ends. Ok, philosophically, this whole issue would be an exercise in futility if we discovered that a "backup" life that awaits in case the first one sucked. Take your mulligan, or should I say let your doctor place the ball on the tee for you. Come on Thomas, our existence on earth is not up for debate as to when it ends, the issue clearly revolves around our soul, and how it can be saved. If I had the two of you standing at my death bed it would be evident that the two of you would not hesitate to pull the plug while I was in the midst of a prayer. And that prayer wouldn't be for me, but for the two souls that are lost standing beside me. |
| Thomas | 10/29/07 | 8:37pm | Bam Bam, your beliefs are your own and I am not trying to say that they are wrong. I am saying that is wrong to apply your moral and ethical beliefs to people who do not share your beliefs. This is an issue that I do not believe should be put to a vote in state. The reason is because it is a very personal decision for the most directly interested party. It is not a decision for strangers in some other city to make. Each and every person is entitled to his or her own beliefs. We cannot impose the laws of a supernatural entity that may or may not exist, may be God or may be a deceiver, that our only understanding of is our meditation and faith, on people who do not share those beliefs. I believe in an entity that is both one and two, male and female, seperate and one. The Masculine Principle and the Feminine Principle. I practice witchcraft and alchemy. I believe that there are other spirits that may be other gods, angels or aeons. Perhaps they are all the same. I believe that there is a such a thing as Hell, but it is not a place. It is our physical distance from the Divine. I believe that al things are of he Divine and will eventually reunite with it for if you examine the science, all things must eventually return from whence they came. Therefore, if energy holds true its nature then Hell can only be a temporary state. This is the very nature of all things. Obviously, I believe in reincarnation. I also believe in Karma. There is no name for my beliefs. Some call me Eclectic Pagan. If they are comfortable with that then so be it. Others call me Gnostic, which is not actually a religion but a philisophical perspective. I believe that we are all flawed and since no belief can be wrong, then it stands to reason that no belief can be right either. Therefore, it stands to reason that it is unfair to require another person to abide your standards. I would not sign a DNR. I would not ask for assisted suicide. I believe that it would be a bad life experience. Now you know where I stand. Even believing this, I vote yes for assisted suicide. |
| Bam Bam | 10/29/07 | 8:05pm | This comment is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to forced on anyones beliefs or NON beliefs. Thomas you have a great comment and I hope whoever reads this will be kind enough to read all that is written. Thomas, you asked how do you take your own life? In my Bible God has given you the greatest gift, your soul, your life but in the Bible (that I have) it say's we belong to him Ezekiel 18;4. We are the overseers of our bodies. In general, what happens to your soul after you die does not depend on how you died, by suicide, disease, or other means. It may affect the ultimate destination, however. There is sufficient scriptural evidence for a final judgment (John 16:8; Hebrews 6:2 and 9:27; Revelation 20). Matthew 25:46 indicates that those judged guilty will be subject to "everlasting punishment." So the ultimate end of the soul is eternal reward or punishment. I do not believe that life ends per say but what happens to the soul between death and the judgment has been long debated. The question could be rephrased to ask, "is suicide a sin?" Murder is a sin. Taking the life of a person is against the laws of man and of God that would include someone giving you the means to do it. This precedes the Ten Commandments, and goes back to the murder of Abel in Genesis 3. Suicide is murder; the only difference is that the victim is oneself. Even a murderer can be saved, if he repents. However, one who kills himself can not repent of the sin. He can not have repented ahead of the act, because carrying through on the suicide proves the repentance was not genuine. Based on this information we must decide this issue bearing both laws of man and God in mind. My Bible also say's that sinning if even you are ignorant of that sin you are still guilty. You said who are we to decide how a person chooses to end their life. I am not choosing this for them, I simply choose not to be a party to it. Because of my beleifs I have no right to make it okay for them to do. I cannot be a party to this thing I beleive to be a grievous sin. |
| Amanda | 10/29/07 | 2:59pm | Well stated Thomas. I actually find it obsence that any person would take their understanding of God and then have the audacity to try and force others to live by those laws. I do not feel life ends at all and that so-called death in this world is nothing more then birth into another world. I do not believe in sin, nor do I believe in any devil or hell, except for the personal one an individual may make for themselves. How a person lives their lives is up to them, we all know that. How they die should be completely up to them and those that are in charge of carring for them( in other words the doctor). I do not believe any government, religious organisation or what have you should have any power to influence something so personal. I fully believe in the privacy of each person and their personal right to make a choice for themselves. I am all for the option to be available for anyone who wants to choose it. Any person who sees it as against their beliefs of course doesn't have to choose euthinasia at all and that is the beauty of choice. |
| Thomas | 10/29/07 | 2:19pm | Someone here keeps saying, "It's against God's law to take your own life." A question to ask is "Does life really end?" How can you really take, as in to steal, your own life? This is a very Hebrew point of view. In the early days, the Jews were nomads, much like modern day Kurds or Palestinians. Jewish laws were all about multiplying and increasing their population so suicide would not have been good for the community. It was also around the time of Moses (supposedly) that they started having problems with poisoners which is where we derive the line, "Do not suffer a poisoner to live." In the King James and Lutheran Versions of the Bible, this is mistranslated as "Do not suffer a witch to live." If a mother was going to die in childbirth, the child was aborted as the grown mother could be more productive and could always have another child. You see, this is not God's law. This is man's law. The Biblical laws simply put them into writing. We are products of nature. Anything that make is a perversion of nature but still a product of nature. Roads and buildings and cars could not exist if nature had not begot us. It is a power that we have misused and and abused over the centuries. Unnatural life span? Artificial medicines are proven to be detrimental to our health. This does not prevent our government from lying to us and people being dependant on them. I believe that it is more likely that our lifespans can be linked to the cleanliness and freshness of the food we consume today. Only a small percentage of people get rescussitated in he doctor's office. Most people who live to ninety do so because of the quality of food, life and activity that they are involved in. Many of us do not take as good care of ourselves as we should and those people still die at forty and fifty, just as careless people always have. Throughout history, there have been stories of people living for 90 and 100 years. A thousand years ago, it wasn't as common but it did happen. Congress passed a law in 1952 that specifically prohibits coroners from listing old age as a cause of death. The reason is they want to know actual causes of death (disease, malnutrition, organ failure, etc.) Of course, people do still die of old age. It's just more specific. Finally, why shouldn't assisted suicide be permitted? If a loved one has cancer and the tumor is digging into the brain, inoperable and untreatable, what person would be so monstrous to force tha loved one to live in sheer agony for the final days of his or her life? We may not have a right to commit suicide but what about the right not to be tortured? Who are any of you to assume that you are so higher and purer to decide how another person ends his or her life? I am not interested in YHWH or His supposed teachings. I am only interested in the now and its meaning as it all that any of us have and it is my opinion that should a person choose an end to suffering, it should be permitted. |
| Starlight | 10/29/07 | 1:53pm | Actually abstaining from a vote would be the most logical thing to do. Think about it for one minute. Even if you hate the diea of a doctor helping a patient to die and it is for religious reasons ask yourself if the tables were turned and you were in a minority voting situation would you not want some sort of equal treatment? Would you not want the majority of voters to keep in mind the minority and come to a reasonable conclusion in your cause? this is the same thing. To insitute a law like this gives one thing-a chioce. It is not mandated at all that a person chooses to end their lives. If you found the idea totally repugnant then n o one would be forcing your hand, but at the same time to either vote to pass or worst case scenario abstaining would at least give more room to those that may indeed wish to choose to end their lives and have a dignified death. The constitution does not support, nor does it deny the right to die at all and currently this is one a state to state level. Perosnally I think pro choice is vital. No one is saying anyone has to go through with the act, but like many other things there comes a time when you have to take your own beliefs to the side and look at a greater picture of what is going on. What actually a vote like this does is dictate to a private person and a doctor what they can do. Bad enough the insurence comapanies do that, why do we have to? Bam Bam your being completely rediculous now as Amanda's arguement is over the interference of modern medicine with the natural course of life. It is a fact that there are diseases now that are treatable that used to be a death sentance if left untreated. That was her argument and I see her point. There are many kept alive in nursing homes that if left to a completely natural course would already have left this world. |
| Bam Bam | 10/29/07 | 1:26pm | Your comment was too good to resist. You even outwitted yourself on that one. |
| Amanda | 10/29/07 | 1:16pm | Thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. I knew it was too good to be true. Bam Bam it seems to me that you have an issue with anyone who sees anything differently from you. You accuse me of intollerence and being illogical, yet look at what you are saying now. Take away every modern advance we have and let Nature have Her way, what would happen? |
| Bam Bam | 10/29/07 | 10:20am | We don't die natural deaths anymore? That's ridiculous! People die from everything including OLD AGE and even some young people (like my cousin) who just got up in the middle of the night for no explainable reason to close the bedroom window, then went back to bed and DIED! Her body simply expired the coroner found nothing wrong with her. When I say to die naturally that means without aid. Holy Cow! OBTUSE OBSERVATION was being polite! |
| Amanda | 10/29/07 | 9:57am | Starlight don't worry about it as some people pretty much do not understand that what they write is all a person has to go on. If she cannot acept the fact her original posts were presumptuous and easily misunderstood as well as generally antagonistic from the beginning then well, there's no point. The bottom line is that we do not die natural deaths anymore and we do not live natural lives. We have made astounding leaps and bounds in medicine and in health as well as in nutrition, so in effect we are living way past what was once an unthinkable age. There is nothing natural about that. I don't have a problem with medicine and it's advances but I see it for what it is which is man's attempt to prolong live via any means nessisary. Nothing natural about that at all. So the 'dying in God's time ' argument or 'dying a natural death' argument for me is right out the window. If you want to do that, don't ever go see a doctor or take a vitamin or do anything other then what you do in a normal course of a day and your death will be as natural as the day is long. Man kind interefered with the nature of aging, now wants to interfere with the process of dying. Hmmmmm sounds like someone out there definately feels they weild the option of life and death for others. |
| CalStar | 10/29/07 | 9:52am | Wow! This debate is really going! Having read the most recent comments it's very interesting. But, i don't agree with someones last statement saying someone should abstain from a vote because they do or don't believe in God???? So, let me get this straight we should just leave out the basis that many (yes many) people live their lives by? That is just wrong and a lame argument or statement at that. Are you saying that if we leave God out of it we'll all come to the same conclusions? I also don't see where Bam Bam is attacking you or getting ready to attack you Stargirl. Her comment is pretty enlightening if you think about it. We don't have the right as yet, but, isnt that what they are fighting for is to have that right? I could say to argue a point with God in mind is logical...or i could say to argue without him isn't. It really goes both ways and it's unfair to keep attacking someones religious beleifs just because they don't agree with yours or the lack of yours. We do not live in a Godless society and it's pretty arrogant to tell someone who lives by gods laws to stay out of something that effects them too. ~Peace |
| Bam Bam | 10/29/07 | 9:23am | Whoops, the comment below is mine! I mistakenly put Starlites name because I was addressing her. Sorry! |
| Starlight | 10/29/07 | 9:22am | That is my point exactly. It is only legal in that state because it was brought to a vote. It wasn't thieir "right" until that time. As for how that bill passed..well I'm sure you read my comment below. As for my argument being based on God it's because that is how I live my life. I am not going to re-debate my argument with Amanda - with you. I am entitled to my beliefs just as she is to hers and we don't have to agree with each other. But, our differences don't make either of us wrong either. |
| Starlight | 10/29/07 | 8:43am | All I can say about that Bam Bam is that if it were not a right in this country then it could never have passed in any state at all. So apparently there must be some sort of legal precidence for it on a federal level. Reading between the two of you Amanda posted stats, pole results, laws (or at least alluded to them) and that to me is very logical. What I see out of you is a contiuous complex about what you think God wants for everyone. For that matter she even posted the Hypocratic oath, a very logical thing to do seeing as how it was being talked about. Even in that it gives weight to the right to die. All you have talked about is your bible. Well in some peoples mind that isn't very logial either. I always have to side with the person who bothers to actually research the subject, and yes saying that her observations were obtuse or what ever you meant wasn't kind at all. No wonder she retaliated. Perhaps instead of posting from pure emotion you could remember that all of this is on line, no one can here your tone of voice or see your face and therefor all they have to go on is what you write. If what you write sounds hostile then the only thing you can possibly expect is a hostile responce. Now it looks like you're going to attack me like you did her. With that, there is a rule of debate. When a person has to result to either name calling or insults (which calling her observations obtuse would be that) then that person automatically looses the debate because they actually have reached the end of their knowledge. One final note. God is a personal subject and every person has a different point of veiw on that. Some people don't even believe in God and as a result there have been major changes in what is allowed in our schools and court rooms. Those people deserve respect too. An individual may not agree, but neither can they shove their beliefs down anothers throat. Abstaining from a vote would be most appropriate for those who do not believe in it. On the one hand you would be keeping with your conscience while not standing in the way of anothers rights. |
| Bam Bam | 10/29/07 | 8:19am | Starlight, I said Amanda was good at obtuse observation I did not call her obtuse. It means her observations that were based on her perception (at the time) weren't very intellectual. |
| Bam Bam | 10/29/07 | 7:55am | Starlight, Yes, I guess I am the antagonist here since I oppose the issue. Here's the thing though, I've been asked repeatedly "Who am I to take away the right." Well, my question is who am I to give the right? It's certainly not a God given right and more over it's not a Contsitutional right. So, if it is not a God or Governmental right what exactly am i taking away from you if you don't have it to begin with? If we have these "rights" that some claim we have in fact do exist why do they have to made legal if it is your right you already have? The answer to that is because we don't have any right at least not at this time. But, because I believe in God it is my God given choice and Constitutional right choice to vote NO. Many of you may think those of us that do believe in God don't have right to be in this decision, but, if we weren't who would be there to oppose it? Ever person in this country has the right to be involved in a decision that will affect the future of our country. Some of you may not agree with those views and that is your choice, such as this is mine. |
| Starlight | 10/28/07 | 10:40pm | Reading this debate I see very clearly where religion has reared it's head. I liked reading the oath Amanda posted. If anything reading it actually validates her arguments. Sorry, But Bam Bam shouldn't have come off the hip on her second post and been so antagonistic. In all honesty she was antagonistic in her first one to Sadri as well. I am certain she believes in what she is saying, but further reading it is obvious she made an assumption that a majority would agree with her. Calling Amanda Obtuse wasn't exactly a very spiritual thing either and uncalled for. Personally what I wonder is this. If the oath states that sometimes the doctor will have to end a life and that his/her obligation humbles him and reminds him he is not God, then where would anyone else get the idea that confusing their personal beliefs with what is a private matter between doctors and their patience any of their right? Are you not in effect playing God if you were to vote against any sort of law like this? You would be tying the hands of many, and like the last poster said, does not a person know when they are done with this life? Who is anyone else, but the person and the doctor to say they either are or aren't? Quite frankly this about a persons right to choose, just like abortion. A person may not agree with it or condone it, but they do not have the right to choose for others what they can do with their own bodies and how they end their lives and neither do they have any right to restrict a doctor from helping in such a sensitive and somber time. |
| Tink | 10/28/07 | 6:07pm | Wow, what a heated debate... each to their own I say... one should never judge anothers decision unless they have walked a mile in the others shoes... Are we not all a made from "GOD/GODDESS" energy... and do we not return to our orignal source ? So if life is a temporary state of beingness can we not change our form of beingness when WE want to? I guess an expanded mind without ego allows for all choices in life to acceptable.. do we have the right the judge anothers choices? My persoanl vote is, if a soul wants freedom from restraint then let it be free to fly...AMEN |
| CalStar | 10/28/07 | 4:47pm | One last note, I see where you pulled your excerpt from Bam Bams quote. You are taking things out of context. The last paragraph in that same comment stated it was a moral and a spiritual choice encompassing both believer and non believer. Seems your the one picking and choosing and throwing the rest in the trash. I'm sorry Amanda you have a good opinion for your side but I simply don't agree with your angle on this member. |
| CalStar | 10/28/07 | 4:17pm | Don't really care, you have alot of nerve telling someone what they meant in their comment. I believe the "we" she is referring to are those people who believe in God. You really need to lay off not, everything you read is meant to be black and white. She is entitled to her opinion and has been for the most part very polite to you. You on the otherhand have been relentless in your pursuit to be right and about what exactly?. You can't seem to leave well enough alone. I don't blame Bam Bam for not addressing you any longer, it's getting ridiculous. As I asked you beofore what are you trying to prove? Perhaps you need to identify that before moving forward on your comment. You have alot of nerve telling her what her religion say's in her Bible or the fact that her religion tells her to stay away from those who are not her kind. How the hell would you know anyway what her religion tells her? Frankly, your way out of line. I suggest you back off and simply agree to disagree. |
| Amanda | 10/28/07 | 2:29pm | Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
|
| Amanda | 10/28/07 | 1:35pm | Hey calstar, you couldn't have read anything. I simply stated and reposted what she herself has written. Not my fault if she decided to jump ship and change her story in the middle of a debate. First quote from Bam Bam, notice the 'we' in it and not 'I' in it: " Sadri if the family simply is being selfish than that's still murder. Why is the family suffering they aren't sick. We have no right to take our own lives under God's law. " According to who's spiritual laws and who is this 'we' she refers too? Here is where Bam Bam suddenly knows the spiritual laws for everyone and basically started in on me,QUOTE
|
| Bam Bam | 10/28/07 | 12:34pm | Thanks Calstar! But, I have one final thing to say regarding the euthanasia comment. Shakespear said it best! A Rose by any other name is still a Rose. |
| CalStar | 10/28/07 | 12:22pm | Amanda your being ridiculous now. So, far you have done nothing but accuse Bam Bam of something she hasn't done. You are completely misinterpreting what she wrote and I've read both of your arguments from the beginning. Now, your pretending to know all about her religion? You've taken hypothetical situations she has mentioned as an attempt to draw attention to possible consequences and twisting them for your own attack. Your a real jerk. Bam Bam your right don't address her anymore! |
| Amanda | 10/28/07 | 6:37am | Uh, yeah the quote about what your bible says about so called suicide, which personally I do not see this as suicide at all but as euthinasia which is putting an end to a painful and doomed existance, and the fact that if a person wanted to go home and do it that was their business (you have no idea what that puts them and their families through) but the doctors should not be able to help..pretty much looks like stepping over the line of 'it's not for me' into the line of 'I am making a choice for everyone even though it really is none of my business what another person and their doctor decides is best' I call that judging a situation and a person. |
| Bam Bam | 10/27/07 | 4:01pm | Which Bible would that be? Which religion am I exactly that you proclaim to know so well? You opened that door Now walk through it. OKAY EVERYONE NOW LISTEN UP...HAVE I JUDGED ANYONE IN THIS FORUM OR ANY PERSON WISHING TO COMMIT SUICIDE? Let's guage the opinions of the people with that question Amanda. P.S. You have a Bible and you visit this site too? Guess that makes you a hypocrite. I'm not going to address you further Amanda simply because you feel the need to argue with someone. Have a Nice Day =) |
| CalStar | 10/27/07 | 3:44pm | Amanda, Bam Bam is right she never quoted the stats and I see where she mentioned the majority of religions, but, she's not representing them by any means. She's only observing they have similiar beliefs. You seem pretty bent on proving her wrong and it's you that misinterpreted her writing. It's making your argument less effective when you attack people. Exactly what are you trying to prove here? People should be able to do what they feel is right, and Bam Bam has a good argument based on religious values. People are gettng back to religious values more and more everyday and this issue will not be decided based on the separation of church and state. It will be debated by people of faith and people of science. Science is based on facts and religion on beliefs. It's hard to mix the two together especially when religion is a way of life, morals and ethics. To ask what religion those people were, what does that have to do with anything? You said you believe in your Priestess, well, have you ever broken on of her commandments or laws? I'll bet you have and that is between you and her. While were in here debating the topic has anyone asked the Dr's if they even want to do this? It really does contradict the Hippocratic Oath. |
| Amanda | 10/27/07 | 3:38pm | Obviously you do not get what separation of church and state means and just as obvious you are completely ignoring what you yourself wrote about how the 'majority' feels. Stats and poles are the only way to truly gauge what the opinions of people are.
The real issue is this in my book and I have asked you this before. How do you presume to step into something as personal as an individuals right to choose when and how their life ends? Because your Bible tells you too? give me a break, your bible tells you not to commit suicide and at the same breath it also tells you not to judge anyone else and to keep yourself seperate from those 'not like you' now doesn't it? Do I need to get out my bible and start with verse and chapter, or do you even care what the entirety of that books says? Are you one that reads what you like and puts the rest in the trash?
If you believe what it says then you would have to know that the Bible is only for those who choose to follow it, for others it has no meaning nor influence. In other words, this particluar type of debate is something you probably shouldn't be involved in, much less this type of web site. |
| Bam Bam | 10/27/07 | 3:24pm | I've never quoted the stats dear that was you an no I don't care about numbers. Numbers don't make an issue right or wrong in any persons book. Religion is always a good base for an argument, religion is your ethics, morals and values; a belief system that you live your life by. AGAIN because you don't listen (or read well)..you can't prove me or anyone in here wrong. As for the religions of those 284 people that have ended their lives in Oregon, it doesn't matter what religion they are if they have one. Their choice to end their life (as I stated before) is between them and their God. I'm still not going to vote to make it legal. |
| Amanda | 10/27/07 | 11:15am | Bam Bam you devalued your self when you attempted to speak for a majority of people in the first place. As far as majority of religions goes even there is constant change in that too, so thats not really a strong argument. Bottom line is this, if you feel it is wrong, fine..so be it, but do not pretend to represent a majority of people or quote stats and then say you don't care when you have it shown to you that in fact you are in error. Tell me Bam Bam as far as your religious argument goes, 80% of the people in Oregon that actually go through with the Euthinasia and end their lives, what religion are they do you know? Religion is never a good argument if for no other reason then the policy this country has on seperation of church and state. |
| Bam Bam | 10/27/07 | 11:00am | People can do what they want, again I have said it. I don't think it should be legal Amanda. I said the Majority of religions (which is factual) and I don't care about your percentages, they don't make you or their opinions right. Frankly, anyone who changes their mind simply because the majority of people did should be pitied. Get it right already. There's nothing you can say or do that ever will de-value my point of view or my religious beliefs. You seem to be very determined to prove wrong (by any means) any person that's willing to introduce another point or oppose yours. It's just seems to drive you to frenzy. If that is all you can do to win your point of view then you really don't have a very good argument. Have a Nice Day! |
| Autumn | 10/27/07 | 10:40am | I work in the health care field working with Hospice clients. I also am lucky enough to live in a state with an assisted suicide network available to these clients. There is a process that the client must take before being able to take the final steps to end their life. It usually takes at least a month to get through them all. That way if they want to, they can choose a different option. Even at the end, they are asked more than once if this is what they want. With family members present. I feel that physician assisted suicide should be totally legal.
No one should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my life. I make decisions for myself all through life, and I want to make the final decision at the end. My family knows my wishes, and it is down on paper so others who do not feel the same as I do cannot interfere to much.
|
| Amanda | 10/27/07 | 8:48am | Just pointing out the inconsistancy and what have you of your statements Bam Bam. it's all right there. First you speak of 'the majority' and now that the majority is actually opposite of what you thought it was you don't care.
I don't have an issue, I just enjoy a decent debate and love to show people what they have said that is in error. In reality you have no idea what the majority is thinking as your own words show, you just assumed you did. Another reality is that you really don't have a clue to what people of alternative religious beliefs think, nor how many are out there, again you just assume you do. |
| Bam Bam | 10/27/07 | 7:07am | She-she, If you can think of that case scenario so can a real criminal. Although I'm sure the criminal mastermind would have to cover all the bases. Then we'd have a Lifetime Movie made about it because it would probably be someone's spouse that almost got away with it. Good point. Your comment also brings light to another comment in here regarding abortion rights and the types of abuse that are out there. Abortion is not being utilized the way it was meant to be when the law was originally passed. Too many young girls and women are using it as a form of birth control, it's so easy to walk in and get one. Now were in danger of that freedom becoming illegal again and that's a shame because there will be some women out there that deservedly need to have one. This opinion however does not mean I will change my mind about making suicide legal. While I don't believe in abortion, I believe there are medically necessary needs for it. If abortion is made illegal again and assited suicide made legal Dr's will be deciding your need for that and the suicide pill too. People joke about Dr's having God complexes. Think about this they will actually have the power to decide who lives or dies and that's a can of worms I hope never gets opened. Imagine a Dr getting to decide if your allowed to have an abortion. Do your symptoms or situation meet the requirements for legal abortion? Or they get to determine if your sick enough to die? Does that mean that these Dr's have to be psychic too? No one can really see the future...what happens and it does happen when people miraculously recover oops a mis-diagnosis. Malpractice goes through the roof again and insurance rates and medical costs go even higher. Better yet, if your in pain and told your dying who's to say you won't pull through in the end and your family takes you to court because your not in your right mind to decide if you die. (Again just an expample) TERRI SCHIAVO ring any bells? Plus, if you have a living will, what stipulations must you put in there in order not to die too soon? Even I couldn't say. It's easy to say we deserve the right to do this or that but, we really need to think long and hard about the potential consequences. Think about these potential situations mentioned above or even this one: a Dr comes in say's you have AIDS (just an example) would like me to treat you so you can live as long as you can or the other option is the suicide pill to end it now because let's face it your gonna die anyway. Aids victims live in just as much pain as cancer or other debilitating diseases. Don't think for one second there won't be one asshole Dr. out there that will actually offer it as an option. If that desn't scare you it should. P.S. Amanda you brought up the poll percentages again..I don't care about percentages for assisted suicide or the fact that people are changing their minds about it. Just because other people are changing their minds doesn't make you right. Those people still haven't made it legal in the other 49 states but, if it's brought to a vote, I'll still vote NO. Are you suggesting I change my opinion based on the masses (that's not retorical). You seem to be a Peer Pressure based activist. Do you really believe this will be legal everywhere while abortion is still a hot issue? I can guarantee you if abortion is made illegal this too will never pass. Your arguments are good ones from your standpoint. But, I think there is far too much to consider and based on your arguments you don't seem to have consider those yet. =) |
| She-she | 10/26/07 | 1:02pm | When someone figures out how to make forgery extremely difficult, my answer to this question will change from no to yes.
Considering the proliferation of identity theft these days, it would seem relatively easy for someone to present himself as you and then have a living will, or doctor-assisted suicide document, witnessed--all nice and legal.
Bad enough that identity thieves are out there mucking with your money. But enterprising forgers might see a very lucrative market in letting someone else decide the end of your life were assisted suicide legalized. |
| Bam Bam | 10/26/07 | 12:58pm | Amanda what is your problem child? That is not speaking for others Amanda; again using examples and generalizations of other religions in response to your similiar (yet opposite) remark regarding the native and eastern populations beliefs that you used in your argument . I could say you are doing what your accuse me of but I won't, I realize you were making an example when you spoke about other nations. If you cannot understand what people are expressing and or differentiate between an example or generalization that reinforces a belief system then maybe you should opt of adult conversations. |
| Amanda | 10/26/07 | 9:46am | Quoting Bam Bam"Amanda I appreciate your beleif in your Goddess or Priestess, but the fact remains that a society based on many religious cultures most of which disagree with suicide we're talking about PHYSICAN ASSISTED SUICIDE. Not tribal customs or eastern ways of life where people do it themselves. Were talking about Dr's assisting someone to die. Dr's who take an oath to uphold life. Patients have a right to refuse medicine and can go home and destroy their bodies as they please it's between them and their God. God gave us that choice. But, as for physician assisted suicide it's still assisted un-natural death. As ususal the polls address everything but what is asked. As for euthanasia my Aunt had to put her cat to sleep; but, she waited until the last possible moment of his illness to love him that much longer. That is not selfish, she gave him love and comfort to carry into his next life. Those of us that disagree aren't saying that they can't we just beleive they shouldn't." Hmmmm...this and the comments you made even earlier certainly indicate you are speaking for many others outside of yourself. Now you say you are only speaking your point of veiw, after the fact that statistics and poles show people who feel as you do to be in an ever increasing minority. In the future try not to include what you think 'society' thinks and stick to what you think and perhaps your point will be clear. America is a melting pot, made of every nation in the world almost...their customs count too. |
| Brittany | 10/25/07 | 11:22pm | I do not feel it should be labeled as "suicide". Suicide is more for those who cannot deal with everyday life and problems; this is helping the terminally ill die comfortably and with dignity. I am a nurse and I see it everyday patients who are suffering, families suffering to see their loved ones so sick. I am also recently widowed 18months ago, and I watched my young, handsome husband waste away to nothing, crying because he could no longer be a father or husband and the mental pain it caused him was far more than the physical pain. I am in agreement, that if a patient is terminal and they no longer have a quality of life, they should have the right to decide when it is time "to go". Who are we to judge?? If you are not the one who is ill, how do you know how they feel? Terminal illness is not only physical but psychological also. |
| Bam Bam | 10/25/07 | 3:43pm | Amylynn I agree with you. Unfortunately, I've had to clarify my comments several times to make my point clearer for some. It's difficult when your accused of shoving your beleifs down someones throat when in fact that's not that case. I think everyone should read everyone's comments with a more detached point of view and remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Great Comment by the way Canada! |
| Amylynn | 10/25/07 | 9:14am | I personally feel that is should be legal if the doctor feels comfortable with the fact that it is actually a form of murder. I am in Canada and at least one person takes there life by jumping off a bridge on to a highway or in front of a TTC train.
MY FEELINGS are that I feel these people are selfish as they are only thinking of themselves in their last breaths. I went to a High School were I see and witnessed FAR TO MANY suicide deaths and had to see a therapist for many years as I was not able to cope with my TRUE feelings.
****************************
Amanda & Bam Bam....
I read all of your comments and the both of you have valid points...By why argue over a PERSONNAL comment....It's not worth it. As humans and citizens in AMERICA we are free to think or feel how we want.
***************************** |
| Amanda | 10/25/07 | 9:02am | For me the point is simple. It is a personal choice if a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn't make searching for a cure pointless as the current law states you much be within a 6 month time frame before you even qualify for the Euthinasia under the right to die laws in Oregon. Personally I really don't even feel that suicide is an appropriate word for this process. I don't think that there should be any moral majority vote on it as those people have no idea who I personally am and what I would want for myself.
People always think of worse case scenarios and of abuse of the system. I personally feel I have absolutely no right to tell a person they must live in order to appease any since of morality, spirituality or ethic on my part. I don't agree with abortion for me personally..however I don't feel that I have the right to say to any other woman to not do it. I am not her and I do not know what she is going through, what happened or what she'll have to live with. I feel it is high time in this country that people started to accept that there is a difference between what you personally feel as an ethic and what others have as an ethic. If it ever got that bad for me then yes I would opt out. I am not going to put myself or my family through that sort of thing to where their last memories of me is days or months of unending pain and suffering and at the end I didn't even know who was who anymore. I have had to see that from others and it is a horror show. There is no dignity to that at all. Long before that point I feel that whatever essence that is me has already left and your left with an automated shell that was used to house my spirit. Let it go and be done with the suffering. |
| Jennifer | 10/24/07 | 9:51pm | As a retired nurse who has been thru the gamit of bitth thru life, i have seen many things. the human spirit is amazing. but, to have someone who is wasting away, year by year, beg for help to leave ths plane - with dignity and to be free of the pain - yes, they have that right.
we areent here to arbitrate how a person chooses to live or die, we are here to help the patient. whether it be to fight the big fighet or to die in their own homes, with dignity, grace and ta release of the pain,. such a decision is deeply personal. as such, it should be ther persons choice. if they choose to end the pain and are done here , they have every right to so so in a manner least repugnant to them |
| Bam Bam | 10/24/07 | 6:08pm | Amanda my opinion is clearly not the only way; you seem to be the only one who thinks that. I will say it again, people can do what they want. I just don't believe it should be legal for physicians to do it. As for the poll for the right to die; it doesn't matter to me what the numbers are. My opinion on suicide will not change. Just because I think people can doesn't mean I think people should. One day maybe it will be legal in all 50 states, but, it only takes one person to abuse it as is always the case in the end. Here's a hypothetical thought if everyone had the right to die when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, what would be the point in searching for a cure, everyone is just going to kill themselves anyway why bother?" Where is the hope? |
| Amanda | 10/24/07 | 11:22am | Bam Bam if you did not pretend to speak for everyone I would not be on a soap box. First of all, look at the pole here. Secondly the last time the death with dignity act went before the courts in '97 it had an even wider margin of supporters then the first time. That margain was 60% of voters for the right to die and only 40% against it..clearly there is a huge shift in thought as both Oregon and this pole shows.
The bottom line is that these laws are of a personal nature. If an individual wishes to prolong their lives and take meds to keep them alive so be it. The person who does wish to have their lives ended deserve the same right. When you or anyone like you get on your high horse and start espousing morality you are automatically presuming your way to be the only right way. You fail to give the individual their own freedom to decide what is best for them.
Like some others have said on this bord, we can abort our babies because it is our body, why can we not end our lives if we see fit? Again, this is of an individual nature and not for any one person or group of people to decide. |
| Sophia | 10/24/07 | 10:40am | Sometimes it is very hard to speak passionately yet not attack other points of view. I shall try to remain respectful as I comment here. This type of dialog is so important because that's how each of us and also all of us collectively can evolve in our thinking and approach. I am willing to change my thoughts on this.
I have believed very much in physician assisted suicide. There was a comment below regarding dying "naturally" so that our lives fulfill what we have come here to learn. The problem with thinking like that comes when one looks at medicine generally. We could let disease take its course "naturally" in all cases, or painful conditions take a natural course, and in so doing let others and ourselves suffer. We don't do that! We collectively seek to aid the healing process, and it's been done as long as humans have been around.
To me, assisting a chosen peaceful end to life is a part of medicine and healing. We all make choices about our lives, and I think this is a choice we should have for ourselves. My mother is aging and has ailments, and is afraid of a long drawn out death. It would mean alot if she knew she would not have to endure that. She would feel secure in the quality of the life that she has left. Maybe one of our lessons to learn is how to take risks to help one another and give peace to one another in different forms.
Does this make sense to anyone? I am willing to listen. |
| Bam Bam | 10/24/07 | 9:47am | One final thought, you asked who am I to decide. Well, this right to die issue will be decided in the courts where people just like you and me will decide based on our morals and beliefs. The courts are the peoples decision. Lastly, at this time Oregon is the only state where assisted death is legal. It has failed to pass in all the other states where it was introduced.
|
| Bam Bam | 10/23/07 | 7:03pm | Amanda Get off your soap box; yours isn't the only point of view in here. Furthermore, "holding the needle" wasn't meant to be literal, it's an example. I am very well aware of Oregons Death with Dignity Act. Sadly, it came to be based on a lie. Patty Rosen I'm sure you heard of her? She admittedly lied in her commercial to get that bill passed. In her commercial she sadly spoke about how she gave the dose of pills to her cancer ridden daughter. After the bill passed they found out she lied. Rosen ended up using a lethal injection to kill her daughter. Suicide activists in Oregon actually used religion bashing (kind of like you are with me) to win their cause and it worked...but only once. People can do what they want, but, I don't think it should be legal. Next time dont be so quick to judge or assume someone is uninformed. Especially a journalist =) |
| Amanda | 10/23/07 | 3:42pm | Very interesting question phyllis |
| Phyllis | 10/23/07 | 1:01pm | Our government has made it legal to kill our unborn babies because it is our body,our right.How is physician assisted suicide an exception,our body, our right.Why is it we can kill our babies, but not ourself? |
| Amanda | 10/22/07 | 5:56am | Bam Bam you miss the point so let me be blunt. Who are you, or anyone else to decide for a person when and what is enough? Who are you to take your personal beliefs and shove it down a strangers throat? That is exactly what you are doing, denying another person of their own beliefs and rights.Pretty arrogent in my book. Oh and if you had bothered to look up how Oregon does the Euths then you would know they actually do not inject anything, they only prescribe it and leave it to the individual to decide. Why not do a bit of googling and actually educate yourself on how this is done instead of assuming you know. |
| Bam Bam | 10/21/07 | 8:27pm | I don't think anyone is condeming anyone to suffer. I just don't believe in suicide no matter who is holding the needle. I beleive we have lessons to learn until the very moment we die and by that I mean naturally. If we end our lives too soon and deny those lessons we take then to our next lives. Some of the greatest lessons I've learned was through physical pain and heartache. I feel very sad for those souls who are not strong enough or have enough support to get through those times. I've watched dear friends die of cancer. But, they held on to the very end, medicated to tolerate the pain in order to be here with friends and family to the very end. It is through these times we come to know God and strenghten who we are as individuals. In our next lives we are even better than the last time. But, no one has to believe the way I do, this is simply my opinion. You want to understand what I mean read "90 minutes in Heaven" and anyone will see what survival in death and life means from this pooint of view. It's a true story. |
| Wendy | 10/21/07 | 6:55pm | We put animals to sleep who are in a lot of pain. No tube feeding etc. Where is the compassion for humans? |
| Amanda | 10/21/07 | 8:45am | Bam Bam as far as I am concerned that too falls in the doctor -patient relationship and is between those two parties and is none of anyone else's business.
No one has the right to judge a persons quality of life and tell them what they must endure in order to pacify some misdirected since of ethic or morality. No one can judge that as the Supreme Court has decided for over ten years and has upheld the laws of Oregon and their legally assisted euthinasia.
As far as the oath a doctor takes they promise to do no harm. How on earth can anyone say that forcing a person and condeming them and their families to endless months of deterioration, pain and agony is upholding that oath. Looks to me and a lot of others that prolonging suffering and illness would be the opposite of said oath, not upholding it. It is all a matter of perspective and there just is not one person who can say 100% what is right for each person. |
| Dream Teller | 10/21/07 | 7:27am | Suicide is wrong. i could go into a 100 page lecture about suicide. but all in all suicicde is wrong.
|
| Lyndel | 10/20/07 | 4:11pm | Doctors (and the western health system in general) commonly give drugs and make interventions that prolong life past the time when people would have naturally died. (Some here have expressed the view that there is an actual time. This is obviously being delayed by western medicine - for people who are rich enough to get this suppport). Pain killers (palliative care etc) will often facilitate death, even when doctors aren't looking for that outcome, though all doctors would know this is a likely consequence. I would rather money being spent to keep me alive, if I was obviously going to die soon, and probably should have in the natural course of events already anyway, was spent on people who have the prospect of living longer with even a small amount of medical intervention, ie. the poor. A lot of healthy people die quickly while death for the rich is often prolonged. I'm not afraid to meet my maker when the time is right. Bring on the morphine if I'm in pain, and unhook the other tubes. Thanks, Lyndel. |
| Min | 10/20/07 | 2:59am | I agree with Mary here - its up to the individual. Although I do have sympathy and thought for the physicians who actually deal with this - they take an oath to save life. It must be very difficult for them to take this position whereby they actually assist in taking a life. But the person so wishing to leave this world should also be taken seriously into consideration. They have a right to dignity - and as another comment here about animals being put down as 'humane' - we are the higher form of animal - why should it not be right for us to go the same way. I applaud those who have the courage to take this step and my prayers are with those who help them on their way. God Bless. |
| Bam Bam | 10/19/07 | 5:18pm | Shamapriya I believe that as well. My Bible say's it differentlly but it's the same thing. I couldn't have said it better. Thanks for sharing! |
| Shamapriya | 10/18/07 | 9:12pm | It's interesting everyone's take on it. But in terms of Karma, I think we really have a death time. It seems dangerous to mess with drugs which remove the clarity of mind at the time of death when it is our state of mind which allows us to meditate on our destination out of the body. If you're doped up out of your mind, or even killed by dope, how will you be conscious at the time of departure, how can you focus on your goal? I've heard that being intoxicated at the time of death can really keep a disembodied person confused and in a ghostly realm, wherein the mind (a subtle body) is trapped and has to live out the rest of the 'would be' natural term of the deceased body. It can make for a hellish exsistence, where if a person just suffers to the end naturally, they finish out the karma with the body's term. Even in the case where a person may suffer, the suffering although horrible, burns off the karma intended at the time of natural death and allows the soul to carry on to the next destiny. My ideas are based in the Vedic understanding as described in the second chapter of Bhagavad-gita As It Is-- an unadulturated presentation of the Gita, VERY interesting read! |
| Bam Bam | 10/18/07 | 11:47am | Amanda I appreciate your beleif in your Goddess or Priestess, but the fact remains that a society based on many religious cultures most of which disagree with suicide we're talking about PHYSICAN ASSISTED SUICIDE. Not tribal customs or eastern ways of life where people do it themselves. Were talking about Dr's assisting someone to die. Dr's who take an oath to uphold life. Patients have a right to refuse medicine and can go home and destroy their bodies as they please it's between them and their God. God gave us that choice. But, as for physician assisted suicide it's still assisted un-natural death. As ususal the polls address everything but what is asked. As for euthanasia my Aunt had to put her cat to sleep; but, she waited until the last possible moment of his illness to love him that much longer. That is not selfish, she gave him love and comfort to carry into his next life.
Those of us that disagree aren't saying that they can't we just beleive they shouldn't. |
| Amanda | 10/17/07 | 4:27am | This is what kills me..with our beloved pets we call it euthinasia and we call it humane. I worked for a vet and attended many of these. I do agree it's the right thing to do as the animal is suffering with absolutely no qual;ity of life at all what so ever.
Now when it comes to a human with the exact disease ( yes they get many of the same types of cancers and other terminal illnesses that we do) we will call it suicide and murder and be horrified that our loved one, who cannot even so much as go to the bathroom or hold down food wants to die.
Personally I feel it is selfish on the part of the loved ones to expect the terminally ill to linger around like that knowing they are in emmense pain and will not ever recover. Death should have dignity, and I see no dignity in this sort of death at all. |
| Mary | 10/16/07 | 11:00pm | Who's to say when some one should die but themselves? If they are in such pain that they feel they must end their lives why not let them? It's almost like getting an abortion, who can say whether the baby should live or die? The mother. It is the choice of the person, therefore i do belive that a safe and quiet suicide is the best, that way they dont have to be alone and afraid when they do it. |
| Keltess | 10/16/07 | 10:36pm | I am a registered nurse and a mother and beleive that if death is inevitable and continuing to support life gives only pain without hope of healing . Then, withdrawing support or allowing the person a painless death is the ethical amd merciful thing to do. The condition must be terminal and the decision made by the person or their nearest and dearest kin if they are unable (Ex. I work with infants and they are far too often left to linger suffering on life support) Often modern medicine turns aside what wouild be Gods or natures way.
The Keltess |
| Amanda | 10/16/07 | 1:28pm | A lot of Native American Cultures have concidered the ending of ones life and not being a burden to the tribe not only acceptable, but in light of their beliefs it is the honorable thing to do. There are easternm cultures as well that believe the same thing.
Not Bam Bam your high and mighty is not the only High and mighty and you nor your version of God has any right to make the choice for any other human but you. And actually none of my Gods nor Goddesses see whther I am in this body or not as relevent at all.
FYI- you may be interested to note that FEDERAL LAWS uphold this choice of a person. While your state may try and stop it, the Federal Laws say it is your right as well..check out the laws in Oregon, their legal battles they have ultimately won, and then hollar at me. |
| Bam Bam | 10/15/07 | 4:15pm | Amanda which cultures would that be exactly that consider suicide honorable? No one has cornered the market on God? Gimme a break already. Most of society in general has a belief in a higher be it what ever name you want to call him or her and they all predominantly believe that killing is a sin and suicide is definitely a no no. God whatever you wish to name him or her is in every fiber of our beings and woven through the very fabric of society. Your really good at obtuse observations but can you get to some actual facts about your convictions? God is never out of the picture that is fact you can find the mention of him/her in most of the polls on site. Which cultures exactly? |
| Amanda | 10/12/07 | 4:43am | I agree highgamer..after all it is you doing the suffering so how can anyone else have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do? |
| Highgamer | 10/10/07 | 8:21pm | I am sick with some very degenerative diseases, and am in constant and severe pain. I think that people who are terminally ill and in excruciating pain should be able to decide whether to go on or end their suffering..... |
| Amanda | 10/10/07 | 4:44am | Really..who's God, which one????? There are many Gods and Goddessess for that matter. No one persons Deity has the power to decide for all of humanity what they can and cannot do. The God issue is simply out. |
| Jammie | 10/09/07 | 4:05pm | No suicide should be legal, god will take a person when its there time to go |
| Glad | 10/09/07 | 11:17am | I do not feel someone has the right. We are not god all might. |
| Amanda | 10/07/07 | 4:43am | Not all families are selfish and letting their elderly rot away. Nursing homes are expensive and home care is even more so.To have a home nurse 24-7 you'd better have some cash and a lot of it or excellent insurence.
Personally I resent the fact God has to be dragged into this as no one has the market cornered on any sort of God at all. There are many beliefs and in some cultures ending your life when you are no longer able to care for yourself is actually concidered honorable.
This is a personaly choice and you may be suprised at how many states are now legalizing euthinasia, and the Federal Laws support it as well. |
| Bam Bam | 10/06/07 | 5:12am | Sadri if the family simply is being selfish than that's still murder. Why is the family suffering they aren't sick. We have no right to take our own lives under God's law. But, he did give us choice so I guess we can choose to live or die. By the way, suicide is against the law in many states and if you live your in deep ****. I can't really comment on third world countries since I don't live in one but that's kinda reaching anyway it shouldn't matter where you live for it to be legal or illegal it's a moral and spiritual choice. |
| Sadri | 10/05/07 | 3:44am | In a developing country where the joint family is a thing of the past many old persons merely suffer because their children or wives are too shelfish to take care of them in sickness and yet cannot wait for the person to die so that they can inherit. The person suffers and the wife or child wins out. In such a case if the property is to go the wife or child anyway, why should they me made to prolong their suffering as well? |
| Amanda | 10/03/07 | 2:44am | Nicely if not bluntly put Jeremey. I agree. I have assisted in the euthinasia of pets. They suffer the same illnesses we do. I have seen people make those poor animals hang on to the bitter end too and it isn't right.
I don't like it for them and I don't like that for us. At the end of the day I say it should be and is our own choice. There is NOTHING wrong with saying enough is enough. |
| Jeremy | 10/02/07 | 10:03pm | We are kinder to our animals often when it comes to their suffering. Yet, as a nation, we'll let our loved ones hang on with pains and illness so horrid, it's just cruel. For me, I'll take the shot in the arm when and if it gets to the point of not being able to tend to myself in regards to bathing, using the bathroom, and general unassisted living. Some may not choose to check out at that point, so that's their choice. I don't want the humiliation of crapping my pants and being a burden. It really doesn't matter if the government approves or not. There are always ways to get away from misery and people, naturally, have limits as to what is bearable. There are quick, clean ways for a Final Exit (book) and the Eskimos knew when to float away on an ice float so as not to burden the tribe and so did the Native Americans when they walked into the wilderness to die. If some people want to have their asses wiped for years while tolling up hundreds of thousands in nursing care bills so they can leave their families nothing, they should be allowed to do just that. If we, on the other hand, say "that's enough pain and suffering for me, let me go" -- it'd be nice to get that needle when we ask for it. It would be a relief! I saw my father's illness and death and the suffering was far harder than the death. I hope I have a choice when it's my turn to die. |
| Cocco | 10/02/07 | 5:21pm | I think this is a perfect example of the government infringing on our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (at least in the US). I would much rather liberate my physical being of pain and suffering which could only lead to enduring happiness! |
| Ch.Suryakumari | 09/29/07 | 8:07pm | With incurable illness or injury in final n mostpainful stages when mercy killing occures with consent of the patient its voluntary.When performed upon an incapacitated person against persons wish is involuntary. |
| Amanda | 09/29/07 | 3:11am | As far as people wanting to kill themselves and being mentally ill no one has proven that mental illness is not a deadly and terminal disease either. I have two uncles who killed themselves. I love them and miss them, but if the pain was that great then how selfish am I to say stay around? Obviously they reached the reject point to where things were just too much.
I think that it is high time that people take thier religious points of veiw away from what these issues are and remember not every one sees things the same way. One of my Uncles was in counsilling for over twenty years and actually was studying to be a counsiler himself. Obviously it did not work in the end. |
| Dr.P.V.L.N.Simham | 09/29/07 | 1:18am | When fatal non curable 3rd degree level extend when nursing or treatment fails instead of keeping in suffering physician assisted.No judge or any law cont help the patient under such circumustances mercy killing advised. Not a curse.Boon to patient.Sufferings ended god decided so happend. |
| Tara | 09/28/07 | 7:06pm | Ann...you described exactly what I was referring to. Please read my comment again. Zero chances of recovery and suffering. |
| Ann | 09/28/07 | 5:17pm | I don't think that this is an option. This is another way for doctors to play god. As for the comment about these people in nursing homes suffering from completely curable injuries, maybe we should take a look at the quality of care being delivered to these people. The only way I would agree with this being legal is for someone with a fatal illness that has gone beyond any quality of life,(e.g. someone who has gone into a vegitative state and is dying.) For people who don't want to live, maybe they should try counseling first, it's amazing how well it can work. |
| Maryjane | 09/28/07 | 9:46am | If there gonna kill themselves they might as well have someone who knows what their doing do it for them |
| Amanda | 09/27/07 | 9:29am | I applaud you Tara and agree with you too Calliope. It'd funny how with abortion it was won on the premise of the woman having the right to choose what to do with her own body, yet years later that same woman cannot again expersize that right for her self. I find this to be a problem in thinking with our nation. |
| Calliope | 09/27/07 | 7:58am | I think it should be legal for very ill people as well as people who just plain no longer want to live. It is much more sanitary and less painful to have a suicide in a controlled hospital setting rather than hanging, cutting onself and bleeding out, or shooting onself. I believe Dr. Jack Kevorkian should have never gone to jail. |
| Tara | 09/27/07 | 5:21am | I am a nurse for the geriatric population. It's easy for those that don't see them suffer with gaping bed sores and zero quality of life to be against euthanasia. For myself, If we had the option today, I would have a living will set up that when I reach the point of no return, that doctors take matters into their own hands and put me to rest like my living will stated. Trying to extend peoples lives for as long as their hearts beat is buckling the health care field with not having enough licensed staff to give quality care to the people we already have in these facilities, and may God help us all when the baby boomers start requiring care. With this shortage of nurses and other care providers already, if we do not do something, the quality of care provided will not only worsen...but guarantee a severly poor quality of care, leading to more painful bed sores and suffering with no potential for recovery. This is a decision that needs to be either made in advance by yourself. Or left up to your family when there is NO chance at recovery. I do not feel the government or these right to lifers have the right to decide. If you are against it...then have your living will set up accordingly. It is truly time to stop the suffering and let those who are terminally ill or who's loved one is in pain with no chance of recovery be laid to rest. |
| Amanda | 09/27/07 | 4:18am | Debora a lot of people misunderstand human euthninasia and the right to die. Absolutely no one has ever suggested it be used for people with disabilities. Universally it has always been about whether a person wanted to continue to live after a certain point with a terminal illness.
They already have this in place in Oregon and no..the doctors does not decide anything at all. In Oregon a person must be diagnosed with 6 months or less to live in order to qualify. If they choose to request the medications they must be seen by two other doctors and evaluated for mental competance. After which the doctor can prescribe the medications. if you are concerned about it being applied to people with disabilitites read up on how it is in Oregon and that may bring you some comfort.
I know what I have seen in the Veternarian feild as an assistant and there is no way I could make one of my pets whom I love beyond all reason suffer with something they just aren't going to get over. I don't want anyone to make that choice for me and call it love. It isn't fair. |
| Deborah | 09/26/07 | 5:02pm | The only reason I oppose doctor assisted suicide as a person with a disability is the slippery slope it represents. It will go from a "right to die" to an obligation to die just because the government may consider some of us as expensive upkeep it wishes to rid itself of.
Who is anyone to decide who lives or dies because of their usefulness to society? I have met face to face with too many people who have told me to my face that my mother should never have had me.
One past supervisor even told me co-workers that "people like me" should be exterminated so we can't have "inferior children." He suddenly realized that what he said was illegal discrimination, and threatened my co-workers against reporting his comment by telling them that they would be written up (by him) for insubordination.
Assisted suicide can so easily become an across the board eugenics program. Those of us with disabilities would be the first to go. |
| Helen | 09/25/07 | 5:15am | I'm all for human euthanasia. If there is absolutely no chance of recovery or a pain free existence then you should be allowed to make the choice or if you are incapacitated, allow your doctor or a person of your choice make that decision. Obviously with many checks and assessments along the way. Right-to-lifers do not have the right to make people suffer with the high and mighty attitude of preserving human life. No matter what! There is such a thing called quality of life. If you don't have that, your not really living are you? I would not allow my animals to suffer and I would not like loved ones to suffer either. If I was in a position of having to make a choice myself, I would rather not be a burden on my loved ones and society. |
| Amanda | 09/25/07 | 4:33am | I work for a vet clinic and we call it humane when we euthinise a terminally ill or very old and sick animal. I never thought much about human euth before I assisted in these pet euths. I do not even concider human euthinasia to be suicide..to do that would be to concider the euthing of an animal murder. I would not want to be made to live in prolonged pain and suffering with no hope of recovery and put my loved ones through watching me wither away.
I feel that this is something that should be up to the person to decide and not the government. Remeber..doctors and hospitals gain more by prolonging your life then they do by helping you to end it. I do feel that laws (such as Oregon has) are important..but I feel it should be available for those that choose it. |
