Euthanasia [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Oakie

2nd June 2015, 19:54

Try as I might, I cannot understand what argument people can have against euthanasia.

Any ideas?

Some say that people like rich but depressed Uncle Barry - Aunty Linda - Grandma - Pops etc may be manipulated to end it all to the financial benefit of their offspring.
Others are afraid that it'll open the door for healthy people to call it quits.
Apart from that - religious waffle about the sanctity of life and"only God can choose when the time will be".

For me, I watched my step-father slowly die over 18 or so months. Strokes, partial paralysis, assisted toileting. Not great for a big guy who used to farm his 10,000 acres proudly. He wanted to go, but couldn't. I remember being with him one morning when he heard that another old boy from the retirement village died last night. "Lucky bastard" he said. When he finally went in to hospital for what he knew would be the last time, he spent time with us all at the start and then forbade anyone from visiting him for about the last five days while he went about refusing all medication so he could finally slip away. There has to be a better option for those who are terminal and want to take their final bow on their own terms.

2nd June 2015, 19:54

Oh, thank fuck someone posted this up. I'd been hearing it on TV & I though some cunt had it in for the Youth In Asia. Now it makes sense.

Damn you bet my post by a few seconds. You must be one of those annoying youths in NZ

HenryDorsetCase

2nd June 2015, 19:56

Try as I might, I cannot understand what argument people can have against euthanasia.

Any ideas?

sensible people don't.

People who are not sensible do. So people whose minds are clouded by silly preconceptions, religious mostly* get a lot of time.

Give up watching TV news. You'll be happier.

Milts

2nd June 2015, 19:56

Katman

2nd June 2015, 20:03

Big Dog

2nd June 2015, 20:04

Personally I hope I never have to make the call for myself or watch a loved one chew on the idea.

If my turn at the plate comes I hope there will be a more humane option than a rubbish bag and a zip tie, and easier to clean up than brushing my teeth with a 12 gauge.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

sidecar bob

2nd June 2015, 20:04

But seriously, when I was a child my mother died slowly over a period of over three years from bowel cancer. As children, we were spared a lot of what went on behind the scenes (this was from '72 to '75) later on & in the last ten years in paticular dad has explained a few things that went on with mum & told me it made him a firm believer in euthanasia. Not what you would expect from a man of his beliefs.

Milts

2nd June 2015, 20:08

Unfortunately I suspect that the woman currently bringing this issue into the spotlight will not see it addressed.

I imagine the powers that be will wait until she dies naturally and then hope that they can simply sweep the issue back under the carpet.

The main problem, from what I can tell, is not that "the powers that be" oppose it. It's that they realise the members of the public who oppose it do so extremely strongly, to the point where attempting to implement it would be political suicide.

Many politicians, MoH officials etc are probably strongly in favour. It's just that to come out and say so would invite so much 'controversy', media, hate mail, etc that doing it isn't worth their jobs. The issues with democracy.....

In a democracy where much of the population are apathetic the strong views of the minority will always hold excessive sway. Nothing to do with power, money etc - it's just the extent to which they are vocal. That combined with the fact that it's easier to report on strong opinions than on apathy creates a distorted appearance of strong opposition.

(Sidenote - looks like physician support varies wildly by country. Surveys seem to indicate support is stronger than opposition in the UK and America, some countries in Europe have much stronger support, and many asian countries are more heavily opposed.)

Katman

2nd June 2015, 20:14

The main problem, from what I can tell, is not that "the powers that be" oppose it. It's that they realise the members of the public who oppose it do so extremely strongly, to the point where attempting to implement it would be political suicide.

Well hopefully someone who opposes euthanasia might be able to shed some light on how they can hold so much sway over those who could ultimately make the necessary law change.

tigertim20

2nd June 2015, 20:15

I understand the concept of the Hippocratic Oath but do doctors truly believe that them swearing an oath should over-ride the right of a person to choose the time of their death with whatever dignity they have left?

(Obviously I'm only talking about terminal illnesses).

Im all for those with terminal illness dying however they want.
Most of those who fight it in court lose, then just do it anyway, because what the fuck are they gunna do after you put a gun barrel in your mouth or whatever.

Though I suppose the argument some will raise relates to the part in brackets in your post - they'll say that the next argument will be, why can't people die if they are in perfect health, but feel content that they have achieved and done what they want in life? hell if they are of sane and sound mind, then should it not be their decision too? - which is sort of a compelling argument - I suppose not everyone wants to grow old slowly, not everyon has or wants a family either?

It's odd how we place limits on what one can, and cannot do to themselves - I know a few women who do not want children for various reasons, but are limited in what options they can take due t being fairly young. they are adamant they NEVER want kids, but no doctor wil let them take the steps they want to ensure they never can due largely, to their age.
weird.

Grumph

2nd June 2015, 20:15

If anyone wants to kill themselves - just pull a plastic bag over your head and pull a zip (cable) tie in as tight as you can - it wont take long!

a guy I knew did just that. If he'd known the mess that ensues when the body goes into the last spasms he wouldn't have done it as he was proud of his car so chose that as the place...

i think most people who are afraid of it are scared of their own family taking matters into their own hands. i've known two good mates and my wife's parents who were certainly given enough morphine to blur the boundaries of assistance. Quite common I understand - and if I'm in that situation, I hope to get the same consideration.
Politicians are probably right to fear euthanasia...

RDJ

2nd June 2015, 20:18

Try as I might, I cannot understand what argument people can have against euthanasia.

Any ideas?

Since you have demonstrated a versatile resistance to logic and facts, surely you are trolling?

Katman

2nd June 2015, 20:19

Since you have demonstrated a versatile resistance to logic and facts, surely you are trolling?

Not at all.

In fact, as someone in the medical profession, I'm extremely interested in your views on the matter.

AllanB

2nd June 2015, 20:26

Reasons both ways.

Against is as noted before risk of arsehole offspring topping off mum and dad to gain the coin. Presumably there would be a suitable process to detect this first, but there is also apparently a suitable process to detect dodgy foster parents in NZ ........

Doctors ...... pretty sure there are plenty who does up the morphine at the end of a life to let the poor sods drift away peacefully.

It is a funny old world. You can take you aged suffering well loved family pet to the vet and have it put out of it's misery without question. Try the same with your suffering human loved one .....

Katman

2nd June 2015, 20:26

Wanking into a little plastic jar is NOT classed as 'someone in the medical profession'.

I'm assuming (based on some of his previous posts) that RDJ is a doctor of some description.

If all he does is wanks into a little plastic jar then I stand corrected.

Katman

2nd June 2015, 20:34

And for that matter, wouldn't it make more sense to have a referendum on this issue rather than on a flag change?

Oakie

2nd June 2015, 20:39

If all he does is wanks into a little plastic jar then I stand corrected.

I had to do that a few weeks after my vasectomy. It was all I could do not to giggle like a schoolboy when the surgeon said I had to do it. It was the way he said it. "You must provide a sample. This is done by maaaasturbation".

Big Dog

2nd June 2015, 20:40

And for that matter, wouldn't it make more sense to have a referendum on this issue rather than on a flag change?

Plus 1.
I don't wank into plastic jars for a living so I may not be qualified to vote on such an issue but I would prefer that those in Palliative care were not in fear of jail time when they disable the dose control on the morphine pump.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Big Dog

2nd June 2015, 20:42

I had to do that a few weeks after my vasectomy. It was all I could do not to giggle like a schoolboy when the surgeon said I had to do it. It was the way he said it. "You must provide a sample. This is done by maaaasturbation".

Did he get the nurse to do it for you or did you go public health?

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

AllanB

2nd June 2015, 20:43

jellywrestler

2nd June 2015, 20:48

And for that matter, wouldn't it make more sense to have a referendum on this issue rather than on a flag change?

do the flag first, then when euthanasia becomes legal people will have the right flag to hang at half mast, i can see people wanting to die but ashamed to have the current flag hung at half mast.

Big Dog

2nd June 2015, 21:01

Is wanking into a tissue or any other disposable receptacle murder? All those sperms killed. They are after all alive.

I've decided it is OK. After all women murder their eggs once a month. Cruel bitches.

How does one or three once a month compare to a holocaust 3-5 times a day?
And you call bitches cruel.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

bogan

2nd June 2015, 21:07

I'm assuming (based on some of his previous posts) that RDJ is a doctor of some description.

If all he does is wanks into a little plastic jar then I stand corrected.

Sentence order applied said profession to you instead of RDJ. The correct response would have been.

"In fact, I'm extremely interested in your views on the matter as someone in the medical profession."

Katman

2nd June 2015, 21:12

Sentence order applied said profession to you instead of RDJ. The correct response would have been.

"In fact, I'm extremely interested in your views on the matter as someone in the medical profession."

I don't care how you and Maha read the post. (The italicised 'your' makes it prefectly clear who I was referring to as being part of the medical profession though).

Mark knows I'm not in the medical profession anyway so his post simply exposed his stupidity - again.

bogan

2nd June 2015, 21:15

I don't care how you and Maha read the post.

Mark knows I'm not in the medical profession so his post simply exposed his stupidity - again.

I believe that is exactly what he pointed out...

You seem to be suffering fromshitgrammar, would you like to be euthanised yet? :doctor:

puddytat

2nd June 2015, 21:16

Well hopefully someone who opposes euthanasia might be able to shed some light on how they can hold so much sway over those who could ultimately make the necessary law change.

Go ask the Insurances Industry.....dead set against it. It makes life a whole lot more difficult for them.
As it stands, anyone who for whatever reason ,takes their own life or is in cahoots with someone to assist them dying , forfeits any life insurance or pensions.
A real can of morals & ethics right there.

Milts

2nd June 2015, 21:56

Go ask the Insurances Industry.....dead set against it. It makes life a whole lot more difficult for them.
As it stands, anyone who for whatever reason ,takes their own life or is in cahoots with someone to assist them dying , forfeits any life insurance or pensions.
A real can of morals & ethics right there.

Easy to deal with if you restrict euthanasia to those with terminal illness only - as far as the insurance company is concerned they were about to die anyway. Trickier if you expand it beyond that.

Another thing to take in to account... a massive percentage of healthcare spending is on the final few months of life (supportive care when someone is terminal). Every day someone is not dying slowly in pain is probably thousands or tens of thousands saved to be spent on someone with a chance of recovery. Sounds harsh but it's true.

AllanB

2nd June 2015, 21:57

Go ask the Insurances Industry.....dead set against it. It makes life a whole lot more difficult for them.
As it stands, anyone who for whatever reason ,takes their own life or is in cahoots with someone to assist them dying , forfeits any life insurance or pensions.
A real can of morals & ethics right there.

Not true. I took out a life insurance policy decades back and the seller pointed out the clause covering self killing - off the top of my head there was a 12 month no pay clause - after that I was good to crack out the tie and chair. The underlying theory was if you were taking a policy to leave funds to loved ones after you topped yourself, after a year chances are (and insurance is all about chances) you would have changed your mind and they would have decades of premiums before having to cash you out.

True story from the archives of Mr B.

husaberg

2nd June 2015, 22:04

I believe that is exactly what he pointed out...

You seem to be suffering fromshitgrammar, would you like to be euthanised yet? :doctor:

Katman believes in Euthanasia as he said he had previously had to put down his cat or Dog.
He also said it was horrible to watch as his father suffered (which no one could deny would have been traumatic to witness as it is for many other people to watch a loved one suffer with no reason to prolong suffering or any treatment available.)
Although he believes in the use of the same drugs that are used on a human or a cat or dog to end their life humanely.
Those same drugs become oddly enough, cruel and barbaric and painful, when used for the lethal injection of people sentenced to death.
Horses for courses...........Or a dollar both ways.

Erelyes

2nd June 2015, 22:11

Katman you've got it the wrong way around. Your comprehension is fine.

The problem is that the anti-suicide zealots don't give a flying nut about the arguments in favor.

They'll swear it isn't true, but they would rather you left your car running in an airtight garage, having told none of your family, than a quiet injection following some final farewells. That is the result of an argument which makes one form of suicide illegal, and the other not. Unless they have some bright idea about prosecuting people for unassisted suicides.

We are forcing law-abiding citizens to choose between an undignified end (causing their families more emotional suffering); criminalising their families/doctors/friends, or wasting away.

The thing that fucked me off the most about the recent media article was this:
'A Crown lawyer, Paul Rishworth, QC, said Seales had the option of palliative care, and the evidence was that would deal effectively with her pain but might mean being sedated.'

Or, 'we would rather you rot in a pile of your own shit, bereft of anything except numbness and delirium.'

buggerit

2nd June 2015, 22:17

If we treated our pets how we treat our terminally ill family members, we would be before the courts for animal cruelty.

Katman

2nd June 2015, 22:31

Although he believes in the use of the same drugs that are used on a human or a cat or dog to end their life humanely.
Becomes oddly enough cruel and barbaric and painful when used for lethal injection of people sentenced to death.
Horses for courses...........Or a dollar both ways.

Clearly my comprehension is lacking.

I can't figure out what the fuck that means.

husaberg

2nd June 2015, 22:51

Clearly my comprehension is lacking.

I can't figure out what the fuck that means.

:laugh::laugh:Yes clearly

awa355

3rd June 2015, 01:19

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 02:00

I don't know any doctors who believe that the Hippocratic oath overrides the rights of people to choose the time of their death. People remain free to choose the time of their death.

On the other hand, people who expect the medical profession to facilitate euthanasia seem to expect that their desire to have us actively assist them in timing and causing their death, overrides our right to choose not to participate in something we believe is against our professional principles.

If you force me to do something against my code of practice I'm not your physician, I am your slave.

Furthermore, you're probably already familiar with the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope is real. Consider just a few vignettes from the world of enthusiastic euthanasia...

In the Netherlands - increase in euthanasia cases per year since 2006 from 1,923 to 4,188. The 2012 figures included 42 with early dementia and 13 with psychiatric conditions. That'd be 55 people minimum who could not make an informed choice. In 2001 about 5.6% of all deaths in the Netherlands were related to deep-continuous sedation. This rose to 8.2% in 2005 and 12.3% in 2010. A significant proportion of these deaths involve doctors deeply sedating patients and then withholding fluids with the explicit intention that they will die.

In Belgium - a 500% increase in euthanasia deaths between 2003 and 2012. High profile cases include Mark and Eddy Verbessem, 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight began to fail; then there is Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His mother said she hated girls, found her child 'so ugly' at birth and did not mourn his death. And then there is Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.

In Switzerland - a 700% rise in cases (from 43 to 297) from 1998 to 2009. Amongst those travelling from abroad to end their lives at the so-called Dignitas* facility have been many people who "could not by any stretch be described as terminally ill". * Dignitas has attracted much criticism in recent years over accounts of discarded cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich, reports of body bags in residential lifts, suicides being carried out in car parks, the selling of the personal effects of deceased victims and profiteering with fees approaching £8,000 per death.

In US (Oregon) - a 350% increase assisted in suicide deaths since legalisation including the notable cases of two people with cancer who were told that the Oregon Health Authority would not pay for their chemotherapy but would happily pay for their assisted suicide – which was of course much cheaper.

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 02:41

Is wanking into a tissue or any other disposable receptacle murder? All those sperms killed. They are after all alive.

May not be the most convincing analogy - after all cancer cells are alive, vehemently so - they don't respond to normal inhibition factors: hence why current chemo regimes have to be toxic. Killing something alive is not sufficient to define murder...

PrincessBandit

3rd June 2015, 06:59

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 07:10

Oh, they have high-level convictions all right - they are convinced that they are owed no personal responsibility but that some group of 'others' should both absolve them from the consequences of their convictions, plus supply them with the services they believe are their due. Because, uniquely, they 'care'. While the rest of us are uncaring brutes. Thus, we should be made to care and to demonstrate that caring, do their liberal bidding.

Katman

3rd June 2015, 07:26

Because, uniquely, they 'care'. While the rest of us are uncaring brutes. Thus, we should be made to care and to demonstrate that caring, do their liberal bidding.

Over-reaction, much?

I don't imagine that anyone suggests that doctors should be 'forced' to assist someone's death

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 07:36

Over-reaction, much?

I don't imagine that anyone suggests that doctors should be 'forced' to assist someone's death

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

From starting with 'you gotta tolerate gay marriage' we have gone to punishing people who won't bake cakes for gay weddings with 6-figure fines and business closures.

From starting with asking men not to 'manspread' (sit with legs apart) on subways we have now decided to actually arrest them.

Read the news.

So, no, I do not believe that you and your favorite social engineers / 'social justice warriors' will not end up forcing doctors to be accomplices in your agenda upon pain of financial or other sanctions. Because that is what you and your ilk do.

Katman

3rd June 2015, 07:42

I know it will sound callous but if those who want the right to choose the time of their own death aren't prepared to take matters into their own hands before the need to rely on someone else to do it where is their level of conviction?

Oh, it goes way beyond callous.

Suicide is still illegal remember? (Yes, I understand that it's rather pointless trying to convict a dead person).

It is perfectly natural that a terminally ill person would wish to spend as long as they feel appropriate with their loved ones and it should be perfectly natural for them to decide when that time is no longer beneficial to themselves or their loved ones.

There are not many 'tidy' methods of suicide available to a terminally ill person confined to a death bed. To question someone's 'conviction' because they didn't do the job earlier borders on the repugnant. You surprise me.

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 07:45

There are not many 'tidy' methods of suicide available to a terminally ill person confined to a death bed.

Determined, decisive people only need one method. You may live twice but you only die once.

Katman

3rd June 2015, 07:45

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

From starting with 'you gotta tolerate gay marriage' we have gone to punishing people who won't bake cakes for gay weddings with 6-figure fines and business closures.

From starting with asking men not to 'manspread' (sit with legs apart) on subways we have now decided to actually arrest them.

Read the news.

So, no, I do not believe that you and your favorite social engineers / 'social justice warriors' will not end up forcing doctors to be accomplices in your agenda upon pain of financial or other sanctions. Because that is what you and your ilk do.

We'll I'm glad we've finally established that you're an irrational fuckwit.

I think your post even surpasses anything that Ed could come up with.

Shaun Harris

3rd June 2015, 07:55

If emediate Family agree, I say let the people make there own decisons. There is suicide, and then there is NO real point to breathing any more, apart from to deterirate more

TheDemonLord

3rd June 2015, 08:30

Euthanasia is one of those tricky subjects - I support the principle, but cannot find a way that such a law could be written to protect the vulnerable, whilst allowing mercy to the suffering.

At this stage - one rule that works for one person, may not work for another.

From this perspective IF Euthanasia was to be legalised - IMO a case for it should have to be made to a high court hearing to determine if it should go ahead and whether there are any mitigating factors.

But that is still a crappy and expensive solution

PrincessBandit

3rd June 2015, 08:37

Oh, it goes way beyond callous.

Suicide is still illegal remember? (Yes, I understand that it's rather pointless trying to convict a dead person).

.

So you still prefer that the onus lays on someone else to carry out the deed?

Btw, I said "discuss".

Kudos to the American woman who moved states in order to take her lethal tablet at the time of her own choosing. She decided when the time was appropriate and was able to end her life without her loved ones risking prosecution for assisting, or even for not stopping her from doing it. And, yes we don't have that option here in NZ (before anyone thinks I really need to have that pointed out to me).

My personal opinion is that if you really want to control the moment of your own demise then do it yourself; don't place that burden on someone else. The person to whom such a task would not be a burden would really be the callous one. And I'm sure there are some out there in our society who would have no compunction about stepping up into the old fashioned role of 'executioner', as was the job for some peope in our "less advanced" (?) periods of history or cultures.

Maha

3rd June 2015, 08:44

NB: If you are not prepared to 100% agree with the narcissistic OP, then there is little point in posting in his threads, he even has little time for his own siblings point of view, because it not his.

PS: His rep comment suggest I got it right ..'Fuck off cocksucker.'

Katman

3rd June 2015, 08:56

My personal opinion is that if you really want to control the moment of your own demise then do it yourself; don't place that burden on someone else.

You make it sound like we're planning on introducing a new job description of 'Executioner' to our society.

There are people out there who would assist a terminally ill person's death for no other reason than compassion.

Why is it acceptable to put an animal out of it's suffering but not a human?

bogan

3rd June 2015, 09:01

Why is it acceptable to put an animal out of it's suffering but not a human?

The same reason it is ok to murder animals. Self-awareness, or lack thereof.

Maha

3rd June 2015, 09:02

You make it sound like we're planning on introducing a new job description of 'Executioner' to our society.

There are people out there who would assist a terminally ill person's death for no other reason than compassion.

Why is it acceptable to put an animal out of it's suffering but not a human?

Do you charge you customers for your time on here? you spend an awful amount of time on here during business hours.

Shaun Harris

3rd June 2015, 09:05

Do you charge you customers for your time on here? you spend an awful amount of time not working on a daily basis.

That was Robert Taylors deal Maha. And many paid the $100+ per hour for his parts fitting, fukin red neck that he is

bogan

3rd June 2015, 09:07

That was Robert Taylors deal Maha. And many paid the $100+ per hour for his parts fitting, fukin red neck that he is

Is that all he charged for turning a blind eye when you got illegal parts fitted?

Cheap as chips mate.

sidecar bob

3rd June 2015, 09:08

That was Robert Taylors deal Maha. And many paid the $100+ per hour for his parts fitting, fukin red neck that he is

Meds bro, meds.

Ulsterkiwi

3rd June 2015, 09:09

We'll I'm glad we've finally established that you're an irrational fuckwit.

I think your post even surpasses anything that Ed could come up with.

why do you insist on devaluing any argument or case you have by descending into mindless name calling of those who express an opinion or take a position other than your own? You asked for the man's position and he provided it. Rather than engage in actual debate you dismiss the very thing you sought. That is senseless!

You present this social conundrum as being simple to solve. Entire nations have struggled with this question long before you began to think about it and none have yet come up with a flawless system to allow those with genuine desire to control how they meet their end, while still protecting the vulnerable.
You have had a personal experience which has clearly influenced your thinking and attitudes, understandably so, and noone has the right to question or detract the validity of your experience or the resulting mindset which has developed from it. Why should anyone else expect less, just because their attitude does not align with yours?

Katman

3rd June 2015, 09:12

why do you insist on devaluing any argument or case you have by descending into mindless name calling of those who express an opinion or take a position other than your own? You asked for the man's position and he provided it. Rather than engage in actual debate you dismiss the very thing you sought. That is senseless!

No, what is senseless is introducing one's aversion to gay marriage and anecdotes of people being arrested for sitting on the bus with their legs apart, into a discussion on euthanasia.

Ulsterkiwi

3rd June 2015, 09:14

Did you miss my post above?

clearly.....

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 09:19

We'll I'm glad we've finally established that you're an irrational fuckwit. I think your post even surpasses anything that Ed could come up with.

Yeah, Katman - but every now and then you could, you know, try to debate the facts instead of trotting out the tired old ad hominem fuckwitschtick? The relevance of the analogies is the desire of your ilk to enforce your beliefs on other people who then you demand implement them. Or else. And the 'Or Else' enforced by Government Diktat.

Item 1: A bakery owner in Oregon broke down in tears while discussing the fallout of her and her husband’s decision not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of their Christian beliefs. Earlier this year, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found “substantial evidence” that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, discriminated against the lesbian couple. Oregon bakery owners face a $150,000 discrimination fine for not baking a wedding cake for lesbians. They now face a fine in excess of $150,000. Aaron said the fee would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.

Item 2: Police officers arrested two Latino men on the charge of 'manspreading' on the subway, presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other riders, according to the report. The term "manspreading" was coined by internet users to describe men taking up more than one public transport seat, by sitting with their knees wide open.

Irrational? To quote Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Katman

3rd June 2015, 09:23

Item 1: A bakery owner in Oregon broke down in tears while discussing the fallout of her and her husband’s decision not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of their Christian beliefs. Earlier this year, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found “substantial evidence” that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, discriminated against the lesbian couple. Oregon bakery owners face a $150,000 discrimination fine for not baking a wedding cake for lesbians. They now face a fine in excess of $150,000. Aaron said the fee would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.

Item 2: First people arrested for 'manspreading' on New York subway. Two men were arrested for "manspreading" and taking up too much room on the New York City subway, documents have revealed. The Police Reform Organising Project (PROP) collected 117 vignettes of citizens' interactions with police for a report on the New York Police Department's attitudes to race and class. "Police officers had arrested two Latino men on the charge of 'manspreading' on the subway, presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other riders," according to the report. The term "manspreading" was coined by internet users to describe men taking up more than one public transport seat, by sitting with their knees wide open.

Neither really have any connection to the matter of euthanasia though, do they?

I'd suggest it's your inability to discuss the matter rationally that's the problem here.

Ulsterkiwi

3rd June 2015, 09:27

No, what is senseless is introducing ones aversion to gay marriage and anecdotes of people being arrested for sitting on the bus with their legs apart, into a discussion on euthanasia.

I am not aware of anything to do with people being arrested for sitting on a bus like that so cannot comment.

I did not however see a view expressed which demonstrated aversion to gay marriage. What I read was someone concerned that social engineering in today's society is not so different to what it has ever been; anyone who makes a stand which does not align with the zeitgeist of the time is attacked. Its not that long ago individuals were attacked for saying gay people should not be discriminated against.
In the case of the bakery, legal action was taken against a business which refused to undertake a contract on a point of principle. An analagous situation might be taking a jewish catering business to court because they declined to make bacon sandwiches.

The point is you asked what the problem with euthanasia is in your OP. Subsequently you asked for the opinion of someone you identified as a medical practitioner. He recounted why there is difficulty for doctors and provided comparisons to other social questions, a common and quite acceptable debating technique. You got what you wanted, an answer to the question you asked, but decided to call the man an irrational fuckwit??????

Perhaps I am expecting too much that an invitation to debate is just that.

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 09:28

Neither really have any connection to the matter of euthanasia though, do they?

I'd suggest it's your inability to discuss the matter rationally that's the problem here.

Mmmkay. I was trying to illustrate the issue of enforcing your beliefs on those who don't share them but - yeah, WOMBAT.*

(* a WOMBAT mod on my bikes is one I did full of hope but ended up being a Waste Of Money, Brains And Time :-) )

Katman

3rd June 2015, 09:31

Mmmkay. I was trying to illustrate the issue of enforcing your beliefs on those who don't share them but - yeah, WOMBAT.

If you go back and read the thread carefully you'll see I'm not trying to 'enforce my beliefs on those who don't share them'.

I'm trying to understand why some people are so vehemently against the concept of euthanasia for terminally ill people.

You're just not doing a very good job of explaining your reasoning.

(At least your acronyms are better than Maha's though).

Banditbandit

3rd June 2015, 09:33

Is wanking into a tissue or any other disposable receptacle murder? All those sperms killed. They are after all alive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/masturbating-men-will-find-hands-pregnant_n_7442436.html

Pain and suffering are givens in this world and as humans we like to feel we are in control of our lives and destinies, including over pain and suffering.

I can't help but wonder how many of those who want the right to have someone assist them with death due to terminal illness are truly prepared to do the deed themselves while they're still mentally and physically able to do so. It's like they want the 'benefit' of hanging in there as long as possible but having the 'back up' of some one else doing the deed once they get past the point of not being able to do it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I feel enormous compassion for those who are suffering through no fault of their own and know full well that it can come unexpectedly to any of us. However this has been the human condition for millennia so what is really surprising about it? Is our own suffering any more or less important or meaningful than anyone else's?

I know it will sound callous but if those who want the right to choose the time of their own death aren't prepared to take matters into their own hands before the need to rely on someone else to do it where is their level of conviction?

Discuss.

THIS ONE _ I agree ...

Euthanasia is one of those tricky subjects - I support the principle, but cannot find a way that such a law could be written to protect the vulnerable, whilst allowing mercy to the suffering.

Who are these "vulnerable" that you speak of? Surely terminally ill people on the way out are way passed "vulnerable"?

You make it sound like we're planning on introducing a new job description of 'Executioner' to our society.

That could be one outcome - especially if enough doctors refuse to participte (as is their right).

Yeah, Katman - but every now and then you could, you know, try to debate the facts instead of trotting out the tired old ad hominem fuckwitschtick? The relevance of the analogies is the desire of your ilk to enforce your beliefs on other people who then you demand implement them. Or else. And the 'Or Else' enforced by Government Diktat.

Item 1: A bakery owner in Oregon broke down in tears while discussing the fallout of her and her husband’s decision not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of their Christian beliefs. Earlier this year, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found “substantial evidence” that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, discriminated against the lesbian couple. Oregon bakery owners face a $150,000 discrimination fine for not baking a wedding cake for lesbians. They now face a fine in excess of $150,000. Aaron said the fee would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.

Item 2: Police officers arrested two Latino men on the charge of 'manspreading' on the subway, presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other riders, according to the report. The term "manspreading" was coined by internet users to describe men taking up more than one public transport seat, by sitting with their knees wide open.

Irrational? To quote Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Neither of these examples are from our country - why then do you speak of "us" ???

Maha

3rd June 2015, 10:14

I love me :love:

Do you charge you customers for your time on here? you spend an awful amount of time on here during business hours.

oldrider

3rd June 2015, 10:25

Is wanking into a tissue or any other disposable receptacle murder? All those sperms killed. They are after all alive.

I've decided it is OK. After all women murder their eggs once a month. Cruel bitches.

True! - While they are all alive and kicking they also are not complete - perhaps conception is the true cut-off point between life or death?

Simply an observation on your post - not coming from any pre-fixed agenda! :rolleyes: - :dodge: (fuck that argument!)

TheDemonLord

3rd June 2015, 10:30

Who are these "vulnerable" that you speak of? Surely terminally ill people on the way out are way passed "vulnerable"?

People who are of an unstable mental condition (I can't believe that coping with a terminal illness provides a good foundation for solid mental health) or otherwise not in a position to make their wishes known and have people who stand to gain from their quick demise.

Maha

3rd June 2015, 10:33

An assisted dying law would not result in more people dying, but in fewer people suffering.
Now fuck off back to work.

Katman

3rd June 2015, 10:34

People who are of an unstable mental condition (I can't believe that coping with a terminal illness provides a good foundation for solid mental health) or otherwise not in a position to make their wishes known and have people who stand to gain from their quick demise.

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to put procedures in place to prevent people killing off their 'loved ones' for pecuniary gain.

Big Dog

3rd June 2015, 11:13

Pain and suffering are givens in this world and as humans we like to feel we are in control of our lives and destinies, including over pain and suffering.

I can't help but wonder how many of those who want the right to have someone assist them with death due to terminal illness are truly prepared to do the deed themselves while they're still mentally and physically able to do so. It's like they want the 'benefit' of hanging in there as long as possible but having the 'back up' of some one else doing the deed once they get past the point of not being able to do it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I feel enormous compassion for those who are suffering through no fault of their own and know full well that it can come unexpectedly to any of us. However this has been the human condition for millennia so what is really surprising about it? Is our own suffering any more or less important or meaningful than anyone else's?

I know it will sound callous but if those who want the right to choose the time of their own death aren't prepared to take matters into their own hands before the need to rely on someone else to do it where is their level of conviction?

Discuss.

To right I would expect to pull the trigger myself. I would however at that point be so far gone I would need someone to load and aim the gun.

For me euthanasia would come when I no longer had any quality of life and I had no hope.
If I had either I feel I would owe it to my family to try and find a balance between not causing them unnecessary suffering because I topped myself and not causing them unnecessary suffering because I was miserable and beyond hope.

Others will set the standard else where and I may shift the goal post in the situation.
Things that would be true before I asked for help with that:
I can no longer ride.
I can no longer fend for myself.
The pain out weights the joys of life.
There is no hope.
I no longer have loved ones who need more than I need the suffering to stop.

Up to this point I'd do it myself, but if the next part is also true I'd seek help:
I am no longer physically able to do it myself.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Shaun Harris

3rd June 2015, 11:15

Meds bro, meds.

Haha thanks for the heads up

Shaun Harris

3rd June 2015, 11:16

Is that all he charged for turning a blind eye when you got illegal parts fitted?

Cheap as chips mate.

He came up with the plan and did all the work free of charge

TheDemonLord

3rd June 2015, 11:50

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to put procedures in place to prevent people killing off their 'loved ones' for pecuniary gain.

I am not so sure - allow for a little bit of hypotheticals:

The easiest solution here would be to make it so that anyone that benefits (financially or otherwise) from the death can't help make the decision - but unfortunately those that typically would stand to gain anything are also the closest family - the people that would want to make the decision.

So then you might try something along the lines that there needs to be certain medical criteria fulfilled before Euthanasia can be requested - but this would effectively make the Doctors party to this - I would forsee a Doctor erring on the side of their judgement of the condition so that Euthanasia can't be done. Alternatively you might get the equivalent of Fatwa shopping (which describes where a Muslim asks a question of a Cleric and gets a Fatwa and keeps asking different Cleric's until they get the answer they want)

Next road block is whether the person in question would want to be euthanized (could be Moral, Ethical, Religious grounds they may wish to object) and whether or not they could convey it. A lifelong Catholic for example would be clear case of someone whose religious beliefs would prevent them from wanting to be euthanized, but what about someone who only recently converted - would they hold the same conviction?

Then what about the mental state of someone coping with Terminal Illness - I can't begin to imagine the stresses and mental struggles of someone coping with a terminal illness. Have they made the spur of the moment decision because they are having a bad day or have they rationally come to the decision after time spent contemplating it? I have read testimony from people with terminal illness where they have talked about changing their mind due to going through bad patches, but then family events and things to look forward to have given them the strength to continue.

As I said in my first post - I support the idea of Euthanasia - that someone should be able to decide the time and place of their demise in order to ease their suffering. I can't reconcile the ideal however with a practicle real world solution - I would even go so far as to say I don't think a one-size fits all solution for such a complex subject is appropriate (hence my comment about having to make a case to a court to decide if there is sufficient evidence that the person wants to die and that there is no coercion or other factors at play)

Katman

3rd June 2015, 11:59

Next road block is whether the person in question would want to be euthanized (could be Moral, Ethical, Religious grounds they may wish to object) and whether or not they could convey it.

See, where you see a road block I just see a silly argument.

Clearly if someone doesn't want to be euthanised then they don't get euthanised.

I don't think anyone is asking for a law change that allows people to euthanise others whether they like it or not.

Katman

3rd June 2015, 12:03

And another thought......

When does removing someone from life support become a form of euthanasia?

TheDemonLord

3rd June 2015, 12:07

See, where you see a road block I just see a silly argument.

Clearly if someone doesn't want to be euthanised then they don't get euthanised.

I don't think anyone is asking for a law change that allows people to euthanise others whether they like it or not.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my arguement - in a situation were someone was unable to clearly convey their wishes (so terminally Ill, great amount of pain but not able to communicate) would they be Euthanised, if so how would you determine whether it was right?

Its all okay when the person can make their wishes known - but if I was a coach potato, couldn't communicate in anyway and in great pain, I'd want to be put out of my misery - how though would someone determine that this was my wish if I hadn't had a chance to relay it previously?

Certainly though is someone doesn't want to be Euthanised - they don't, but it is that wonderful grey area between the black and white that is filled with legal landmines.

TheDemonLord

3rd June 2015, 12:09

Katman

3rd June 2015, 12:10

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my arguement - in a situation were someone was unable to clearly convey their wishes (so terminally Ill, great amount of pain but not able to communicate) would they be Euthanised, if so how would you determine whether it was right?

Sort of like making out a will.

While they're of sound mind they should have the right to stipulate they wish to have an assisted death.

Much like tattooing 'do not resuscitate' on your chest.

Katman

3rd June 2015, 12:18

I believe the distinction is when the Life Support system is artificially keeping the body alive and there is no brain activity (as in they are brain dead) but I will defer to a medical professional.

So what about when someone is kept on life support long enough to regain unassisted breathing function only to then remain a vegetable for the rest of their life when the life support is removed?

Having watched my sister-in-law die at the age of 34 in a vegetative state, my wife is well aware that I have no desire to spend years having my arse and chin wiped because I can do nothing other than lie there and stare at the ceiling.

Tazz

3rd June 2015, 12:23

I know it will sound callous but if those who want the right to choose the time of their own death aren't prepared to take matters into their own hands before the need to rely on someone else to do it where is their level of conviction?

Yeah fully! It crossed my mind a few years ago and if I ever got seriously crook I would be out of a plane without ever opening the shoot or stepping off something high, just for a bit of a thrill on the way out like :laugh: Annoying part is you'd get some dumb 'officials' wasting time looking for bodies or 'investigating' what happened. Euthanasia would help sort that kind of inconvenience on others and wasted resources.

Swoop

3rd June 2015, 12:44

...but they would rather you left your car running in an airtight garage...

A very unwise method nowadays. All you get is a crappy headache due to the exhaust-emission crap on modern vehicles.
Or so I'm informed.

Ulsterkiwi

3rd June 2015, 13:25

So what about when someone is kept on life support long enough to regain unassisted breathing function only to then remain a vegetable for the rest of their life when the life support is removed?

Having watched my sister-in-law die at the age of 34 in a vegetative state, my wife is well aware that I have no desire to spend years having my arse and chin wiped because I can do nothing other than lie there and stare at the ceiling.

It is not unknown for food and water to be withdrawn from those who are terminally ill and heavily sedated/under massive pain control. I have often wondered myself how this is different from administering drugs to induce death. I am guessing the argument there is 'nature' is being allowed to take its course.

I know from a family situation affecting a close relation overseas that even in countries where euthanasia has been legislated for the system is fraught with difficulties. Even when some of your (very plausible) suggestions have been enshrined in that legislation.

An individual determines circumstances which they define as intolerable suffering and put in place the required documentation which allows them to have a medically assisted death at a time of their choosing. Two appointed doctors have given their assent, lawyers put their bit in place, family has been consulted and informed.
When those circumstances arise it is determined that the individual concerned is no longer of sound enough mind to make the decision and the euthanasia cannot proceed. No life support is involved, no heavy medication is involved, the individual concerned lives in a cared for environment but still enjoys physical mobility and some independence. In the lucid times, the individual is aware this is not what they wanted. Those lucid times are not all the time however.
The family now have to watch a deteriorating loved one whom they know did not want to go this way.
its hard, frustrating and very very sad.

spanner spinner

3rd June 2015, 13:31

A very unwise method nowadays. All you get is a crappy headache due to the exhaust-emission crap on modern vehicles.
Or so I'm informed.

Nope the CO2 will still get you, haven't got exhaust gases smelling of roses or putting out Oxygen yet. Plus even the best exhaust emission systems still put out CO which binds to the haemoglobin in your blood blocking oxygen pick up so even if some one finds you this makes it very hard to resuscitate. The CO only needs to be in very small concentrations 12,800 ppm (1.28%) Unconsciousness after 2–3 breaths. Death in less than three minutes.
use to work in a job that involved working down access holes and a lot of them where located by roads, we constantly tested for CO2 when working by roads as it is a heavy part of the air around us so tended to fill the access holes displacing the oxygen.

awa355

3rd June 2015, 16:23

My wife and I have a pact. If one is suffering immense pain and is at the end of a terminal illness, there is no hope and the other knows that the one suffering just wants to go, then her or I will do what needs to be done.

RDJ

3rd June 2015, 18:04

Neither of these examples are from our country - why then do you speak of "us" ???

Social engineering tends to spread

Stupid social engineering spreads exponentially...

Katman

3rd June 2015, 18:43

Social engineering tends to spread

Thankfully enlightenment tends to also.

Crasherfromwayback

3rd June 2015, 19:06

Katman

3rd June 2015, 19:11

We had to make the painful (but correct) decision to unplug my father back in 2011, and I can assure you, the fantastic Dr gave us that knowing look when telling us he'd feel no pain that basically told me he'd help him along with a decent shot of morphine.

I'm fairly certain the same happened with my Dad too. If that's indeed what happened then I'm extremely grateful for the gesture.

So if it's happening behind the scenes is it not time to have serious, open dialogue about it?

Shaun Harris

3rd June 2015, 19:13

We had to make the painful (but correct) decision to unplug my father back in 2011, and I can assure you, the fantastic Dr gave us that knowing look when telling us he'd feel no pain that basically told me he'd help him along with a decent shot of morphine.

Must have been amazingly hard, but obviously the best thing to do for your dad man.

Crasherfromwayback

3rd June 2015, 19:18

I'm fairly certain the same happened with my Dad too. If that's indeed what happened then I'm extremely grateful for the gesture.

So if it's happening behind the scenes is it not time to have serious, open dialogue about it?

We were too mate. And absolutely. It's incredible to think we have the right to terminate a life before it's born, but not end the incredible pain, suffering and loss of dignity to a proud person when they're basically fucked.

Must have been amazingly hard, but obviously the best thing to do for your dad man.

It was indeed. Worst day of my life so far. But had to be done.

Ulsterkiwi

3rd June 2015, 19:47

...... It's incredible to think we have the right to terminate a life before it's born, but not end the incredible pain, suffering and loss of dignity to a proud person when they're basically fucked....

and here we have it, the inconsistencies of societal "norms"

change is hard on a society, I think Katman is right, open dialogue is well past due.
Unfortunately for some, that means those opposed to the change get to have their say as well and for it to be taken seriously. If we do not take seriously the idea that things may be better the way they are then the dialogue is meaningless, then it is just engineering.

Its not all doom and gloom though, I think life would be very depressing if we did not from time to time take stock and remember all the growth that has happened in our society. Some changes have had painful births, but nothing worthwhile has ever come about easily, isn't that the cliche?

If we keep asking the questions being asked here then who knows, there may be a solution in our lifetimes.

Crasherfromwayback

3rd June 2015, 20:42

If we keep asking the questions being asked here then who knows, there may be a solution in our lifetimes.

We live in hope mate!

Edbear

3rd June 2015, 21:10

And another thought......

When does removing someone from life support become a form of euthanasia?

I believe the distinction is when the Life Support system is artificially keeping the body alive and there is no brain activity (as in they are brain dead) but I will defer to a medical professional.

As in most cases it's never clear cut and is usually left to the Doc to inform. Apparent miracles do happen and after switching life support off, the patient remains breathing. We have all heard of people coming out of a coma after many years
.

In my father's case they offered to withdraw the antibiotics that was preventing pneumonia. Dad was literally a barely breathing skeleton, bed sores, morphine pump, the works. However he was conscious and when this man who had sworn that in the event he became like this he would want to be euthenased, was asked if that was what he wanted, said, (rather whispered), "No, keep them going."

He died three days later.

I have lost loved ones to MS, cancer and Motor Neurone disease and in each case, they had effective pain relief and did not want their death hastened.

It's good to discuss it but in practice it already happens under the present system. We don't really know what we would want until we are actually in that position.

Crasherfromwayback

3rd June 2015, 21:57

. Apparent miracles do happen and after switching life support off, the patient remains breathing. We have all heard of people coming out of a coma after many years

.

So there's hope for you yet.

Madness

3rd June 2015, 21:59

We don't really know what we would want until we are actually in that position.

Just remember I'm here for you if you ever need assistance Ed.

Erelyes

4th June 2015, 00:42

The relevance of the analogies is the desire of your ilk to enforce your beliefs on other people who then you demand implement them. Or else. And the 'Or Else' enforced by Government Diktat.

Item 1: A bakery owner in Oregon broke down in tears while discussing the fallout of her and her husband’s decision not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of their Christian beliefs. Earlier this year, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found “substantial evidence” that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, discriminated against the lesbian couple. Oregon bakery owners face a $150,000 discrimination fine for not baking a wedding cake for lesbians. They now face a fine in excess of $150,000. Aaron said the fee would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.

Stop thy clodhopping logic right there mister.

"I will provide a cake-baking service to anyone. Except gay people."
"I will not provide a death-assistance service to anyone. End of."

Do you see the difference?

Now, if you refused to kill anyone except gays, that'd be discrimination. ;)

On your #2, about the guys spreading their junk, the relevance utterly escapes me.

bogan

4th June 2015, 08:05

On your #2, about the guys spreading their junk, the relevance utterly escapes me.

Euthanasia testing candidates? :scratch:

Paul in NZ

4th June 2015, 09:31

The prime goal is to alleviate suffering, and not to prolong life. And if your treatment does not alleviate suffering, but only prolongs life, that treatment should be stopped. Christiaan Barnard

All the energy that goes into this debate should be directed at the religious whacko's that prevent contraception, the bastards that start wars and the pricks that steal aid goods from the starving. The child molesters and the rapists, the people who hurt and harm just because they can. In short - all the negative, crappy things.

Governments are more than happy to kill others that oppose them so if some folks want out bad enough and they meet certain criteria why not? Governments are (in general) not too keen on keeping people alive pointlessly or providing expensive medical interventions while their illness is treatable so its only logical to assist with the inevitable.

The only thing that really stops us is the faintly uncomfortable feeling that one day we will be standing in front of some god or other explaining our actions. Its an odd situation because surely the question should go the other way...

Ulsterkiwi

5th June 2015, 13:35

perhaps the discussion will happen after all

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/69125422/death-of-lecretia-seales-may-inspire-parliament-to-take-up-issue-of-voluntary-euthanasia

Katman

5th June 2015, 13:43

Here's hoping.

RDJ

5th June 2015, 14:38

Stop thy clodhopping logic right there mister.

"I will provide a cake-baking service to anyone. Except gay people."
"I will not provide a death-assistance service to anyone. End of."

Do you see the difference?

Now, if you refused to kill anyone except gays, that'd be discrimination. ;)

On your #2, about the guys spreading their junk, the relevance utterly escapes me.

The common-denominator-relevance is that once a group decides that a particular habit or practice or lifestyle (whether being gay, sitting legs apart, no baking for gay weddings) shall be not only allowed or required but the allowance or requirement enforced - because they = the biens-pensants know what's best for the rest of us - and get the full force of the Government to enforce their intolerance, then everything can be made mandatory and punishable. And punishable by up to and including death.

If you think that is exaggeration - ISIS decided that being gay / being an infidel is punishable by death so in the territory they govern that's how they punish people who don't go along with the status quo they want to enforce.

If any of the opponents of gay marriage had said a few years ago that if gay marriage was to be permitted, bakers who refuse to cater to gay weddings by baking a cake could be fined a hundred thousand dollars, proponents of gay marriage would have scoffed vigorously at the stupidity of that fantasy. Yet here we are.

(BTW: I've got nothing against gay people contracting a lifelong relationship, although I would prefer they used their own word rather than marriage - which has for a very long time meant a unique partnership between man and woman. But I don't think there is any reason, need, point or goal to achieve, to deny people who want to have that relationship, formalising that relationship. So why does the same community that wanted tolerance, now wish to act intolerantly? I'd say the answer lies in human nature, because when we can do something, we tend to do so even if we shouldn't. Once euthanasia becomes easier, it will happen more often. That's not my opinion: that's, again, (1) human nature and (2) firmly evident from the euthanasia medical literature.)

In terms of euthanasia, there are at least two major difficulties. The first is, making sure that people are not killed for others' convenience but because they actually want to shorten their life. a few posts back I outlined some of the unintended consequences whereby people are not making informed choices about shortening their life. The second is, making sure that people who administer euthanasia are not made to do it for others' convenience. Quite a few of the posts on this thread seem to indicate that administering euthanasia should not be left to the choice of the doctor. In which case, why don't you go ahead and do it yourselves rather than force compliance?

(BTW again, I don't see anyone inside or outside the profession arguing against the right to die with minimal suffering and as peacefully as possible. Quite the contrary).

RDJ

5th June 2015, 14:41

perhaps the discussion will happen after all

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/69125422/death-of-lecretia-seales-may-inspire-parliament-to-take-up-issue-of-voluntary-euthanasia

A reasoned and rational discussion is always welcome. An irrational desire to compel other people not just to believe in one's views, but to act upon one's belief contrary to their principles, is unwelcome. Many proponents of euthanasia fail to spot the difference, just as many opponents of euthanasia fail to spot the difference.

If adults compile a Living Will or similar document, to ensure their wishes about not being resuscitated will be followed, inform their relatives, and inform the people looking after them in a serious or terminal illness, no one I have ever worked with would brush it off and insist on resuscitating these people. (Over the years I have also seen people with DNR (do not resuscitate) instructions tattooed on their chest... an example of such, not the chest, and retrieved via Google, is attached below).

That said again, just like a prenup, a Living Will / DNR document can and has been challenged in court by a family member. But that's not a medical disadvantage, that's legal.

http://www.dossey.com/images/Blog-Images/DNR_Tattoo.jpg
Not my patient

Katman

5th June 2015, 15:02

If any of the opponents of gay marriage had said a few years ago that if gay marriage was to be permitted, bakers who refuse to cater to gay weddings by baking a cake could be fined a hundred thousand dollars, proponents of gay marriage would have scoffed vigorously at the stupidity of that fantasy. Yet here we are.

Bullshit.

People have been penalised on the grounds of discrimination way before gay marriage ever appeared on the scene.

RDJ

5th June 2015, 15:04

Bullshit.

As always, you put forward a very convincing argument in rebuttal.

Katman

5th June 2015, 15:08

As always, you put forward a very convincing argument in rebuttal.

Did your selective eyes miss the second sentence?

husaberg

5th June 2015, 16:16

Bullshit.

People have been penalised on the grounds of discrimination way before gay marriage ever appeared on the scene.

So Katman if Euthanasia was made legal and a doctor refused to perform it then what, he too should be subject to court action for refusing to do it, in your own eyes............

Katman

5th June 2015, 16:52

So Katman if Euthanasia was made legal and a doctor refused to perform it then what, he too should be subject to court action for refusing to do it, in your own eyes............

Not if it was legislated that doctors only assisted a death on a free-will basis.

(And refusing to assist someone's death wouldn't really fall into the recognised classes of discrimination anyway).

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 17:15

Is it not so that a doctor can withhold treatment that they believe to not be in the patients best interests?
They withhold treatment on a it costs too much basis so surely if they had an ethical objection to any procedure they can?

Again please correct me if I am wrong a doctor can be compelled only to not hasten death?

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 17:30

Not if it was legislated that doctors only assisted a death on a free-will basis.

(And refusing to assist someone's death wouldn't really fall into the recognised classes of discrimination anyway).

Yes it would, you just created it.........multiple in fact, you clearly need to think through your arguments a little better.:rolleyes:

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 17:35

Madness

5th June 2015, 17:37

So Katman if Euthanasia was made legal and a doctor refused to perform it then what...

There are plenty of Chinese doctors around.

RDJ

5th June 2015, 17:40

Did your selective eyes miss the second sentence?

No, I saw the second sentence, but it didn't add any value.

Are you involved in the motorcycle industry in any retail capacity?

RDJ

5th June 2015, 17:45

I don't get it at all, marriage celebrants are allowed to refuse to marry any couple they like. No reason needed.
Now if they were to post online it was because they were black, gay, Jewish etc that might be a different yarn. Why would a doctor not be allowed to refuse?
If he just said, sorry I don't believe that to be ethical no dramas. If on the other hand he was euthanising Jews 2 a weekend and refusing gay people perhaps he might have to answer a few questions.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

For example, consider the abortion law in New Zealand. (Please note, this analogy is not a comment in any way about the desirability or undesirability of abortions being legally available in New Zealand).

The law currently states, if a doctor refuses to refer you to an abortion provider because they don't "believe" in abortion or have a "conscientious objection", then they have a legal obligation to refer you to another doctor who will. In other words, if you go to see a doctor wanting an abortion, that doctor is obliged to facilitate your request and "make it happen".

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service. This element of compulsion allows no room for personal ethics.

If a similar statute was to be placed on the law books, that a doctor was legally obliged, under threat of legal sanction, to administer a dose of a drug that would result in euthanasia, this should be equally morally repugnant even to those who support euthanasia. If it is not morally repugnant, then I am afraid we have no common ground for discussion.

Katman

5th June 2015, 17:53

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service.

Because it's not about the doctor.

It's about the patient.

(I shouldn't really be having to teach you this).

RDJ

5th June 2015, 17:57

Because it's not about the doctor.

It's about the patient.

(I shouldn't really be having to teach you this).

You are not teaching anything. It's not Always all about the patient. It's sometimes simply not safe to give patients everything they want - especially if they're under informed or incapable of making a rational decision. That's not patronising, that's reality.

It's even more, and extremely, unsafe to 'give' the patients what the government thinks the patients should get. Yes, I know I'm invoking Godwin's Law, but you really ought to read outside your narrow sphere of opinion, about what happens when doctors get given too much power by governments over life and death. Literally.

You should read

Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich: Historical and Contemporary Issues / John J. Michalczyk.

Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others in Germany / Benno Müller-Hill.

These authors describe what happens when governments give the medical profession the power of life and death over Approved and Unapproved 'Treatments'.

But, based on your postings, I'm pretty sure your mind is made up, and rational discourse has no place in your attitude to life at least in this particular context. No doubt, you're saying the same / worse about me. So, you 'win' this one.

Katman

5th June 2015, 18:00

You are not teaching anything. It's not Always all about the patient. It's sometimes simply not safe to give patients everything they want - especially if they're under informed or incapable of making a rational decision. That's not patronising, that's reality.

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

puddytat

5th June 2015, 18:07

This topic is way more deserving of a referendum than a stupid fucking flag.

Katman

5th June 2015, 18:08

So, you 'win' this one.

I'm pleased you're starting to see sense.

P.S. Even I would fight tooth and nail against any legislation that would 'force' you to assist someone's death.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 18:18

husaberg

5th June 2015, 18:22

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

You are an first class idiot.

The doctors Job is to the do the best that can without causing harm.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. .

No, I saw the second sentence, but it didn't add any value.

Are you involved in the motorcycle industry in any retail capacity?

I note you were too scared to answer this question Katman. why is that..........

Katman

5th June 2015, 18:29

You are an first class idiot.

The doctors Job is to the do the best that can without causing harm.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. .

It's already been mentioned that the Hippocratic Oath has undergone considerable change over the years.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 18:37

It's already been mentioned that the Hippocratic Oath has undergone considerable change over the years.

Yet you hypocritically post answers to questions that are not asked while refusing to answer questions posted to you as they points towards your own simplistic ideals, you deny your own motives in doing so and refuse to consider others opinions are as valid if not more considered and balanced than your own are.

You might do better to Stick to the free energy Katamam

No, I saw the second sentence, but it didn't add any value.

Are you involved in the motorcycle industry in any retail capacity?

Why do you not answer the question? Does it not suit your agenda?

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 18:37

For example, consider the abortion law in New Zealand. (Please note, this analogy is not a comment in any way about the desirability or undesirability of abortions being legally available in New Zealand).

The law currently states, if a doctor refuses to refer you to an abortion provider because they don't "believe" in abortion or have a "conscientious objection", then they have a legal obligation to refer you to another doctor who will. In other words, if you go to see a doctor wanting an abortion, that doctor is obliged to facilitate your request and "make it happen".

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service. This element of compulsion allows no room for personal ethics.

If a similar statute was to be placed on the law books, that a doctor was legally obliged, under threat of legal sanction, to administer a dose of a drug that would result in euthanasia, this should be equally morally repugnant even to those who support euthanasia. If it is not morally repugnant, then I am afraid we have no common ground for discussion.

I agree compelling someone to act as an executioner is repugnant.
I agreed a long time back that this was not about compelling the doctor to stick a needle in someone, but surely if there is a demand for the service and there are practioners willing to dispense the service within credibile guidelines then that should be the end of it.
Not the local gp has to assist you to euthanise your otherwise healthy 2 year old becuase they have a runny nose, but something you need to go and see the specialists in the field and be referred to them because you no longer have a quality of life.
To go with your abortion analogy, when someone I know was referred for an abortion there were many hoops.
They were referred by family planning to a counselor who checked that the person in question knew what they were doing. That councilor referred them to a doctor who checked they met the physical criteria, the medical councils ethical criteria and that they had an ok from the counselor.
They were then sent away for a minimum of 24 hours and had to make a booking for the next business day after that cooling off period.

To draw that analogy, the gp would have referred say a cancer patient to an Oncologist. The Oncologist would have done their best to treat the condiiton and its symptoms.
Once all hope was lost the patient would express to the doctor that they could no longer fight.
They would have to get a clearance from a counsellor that they knew what they asked for, and had given it reasonable thought.
The Oncologist if they were not equipped or willing would refer on to a specialist. This seems like the bit that sticks in your craw and I would respect your decision to refuse to make that referral, perhaps the legislation needs to make that the right of the doctor because you are dealing with a living breathing conscious human and not a collection of cells.
The specialist would make sure that your case stacked up. Guess what, not everyone who asks will. Some get turned away from abortions too, for a different friend they were too much of a risk to themselves if they had proceeded. I am sure she could have presented to a different counsellor another day given different answers and got the answer she wanted though.
Then and only then could the proceedure be carried out.

One of my greatest fears is that I will experience a slow and painful death and that I won't give up before it is too late for me to do the neccesary myself.
To play devils advocate for a moment.
How many people give up before all avenues are exhausted because the assisted route is not there?
Would you fight for longer if you new you left it too late someone would do what you couldn't?

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 18:40

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-their

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/25/3651276/sweet-cakes-settlement-order

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/110k-raised-us-florist-refused-gay-couple-6277905

BTW There is a difference between ethics and morals.....

I don't get your point? Perhaps you need to use more words?

I know that there is a difference between ethics and morals.

It would be ethically repugnant to me to allow someone to suffer when I was able to ease that suffering.
It woudl be morally and ethically repugnant to make me end that suffering irrespective of my views.
It woudl be morally corrupt for me to marry for money.

I am not a doctor so I have the fortune to never have to make this call for another.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 18:42

I don't get your point? Perhaps you need to use more words?

Ethics are different than morals its pretty simple.
The second point was people are prosecued for refusing deny a legal service request.

You didn't when you posted your reply hence why you edited it

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 18:47

What I don't get is:
If doctor a finds it ethical to ease suffering via a deep sleep and doctor b does not why does doctor b get to be right?
Why is it that most of the times this topic is brought up it does not recieve robust discussion?

PrincessBandit

5th June 2015, 18:48

i would like to say that I fully support someone's right to stipulate their "do not resusitate" instructions. My own example where a person's mind can change is an aunt of my husband. When she was first deathly ill all whe wanted was to die and join her husband and not be resusitated; she recovered to go home for several months before having to return gravely ill to hospital. When discussing her prospects with one of her daughters in her hospital bed her words vehemently to her daughter were (in thick Dutch accent) "I want to live!"
I suppose my point from this is that people can and do change their mind. The choice to be terminated is obviously irreversible once done so there is no room for "what ifs" or breast beating after the fact.

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 18:49

Ethics are different than morals its pretty simple.
The second point was people are prosecued for refusing deny a legal service request.

Yes, but how your response relates to the quoted post is not clear.

In the given context you might as well have said the sky at night is a different colour.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 18:51

Yes, but how your response relates to the quoted post is not clear.

In the given context you might as well have said the sky at night is a different colour.

Things are really black and white which is why Katmaam has trouble with what is a complicated topic not fitting his own over simplistic views.

What I don't get is:
If doctor a finds it ethical to ease suffering via a deep sleep and doctor b does not why does doctor b get to be right?
Why is it that most of the times this topic is brought up it does not recieve robust discussion?

You don't know the difference.

Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

It does receive robust discussion and debate but it is a complicated subject but it is fraught, I my self I are in favour of it, but the whole legality of it needs to be correctly framed around it.

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 18:57

You don't know the difference.

Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

It does receive robust discussion and debate but it is a complicated subject but it is fraught, I my self I are in favour of it, but the whole legality of it needs to be correctly framed around it.

Perhaps this is a distinction that you are reading to thinly?

Ethics are very complicated an often legislated. That does not proclude you from having other ethical barriers from your moral beliefs.

Just because soemthing is included in law to be ethical doesnt make it moral.
Just because something is inlcuded in law to be ethical doesnt make it ethical either.

Katman

5th June 2015, 19:19

Why do you not answer the question? Does it not suit your agenda?

What the fuck has my business got to do with euthanasia?

(Other than your first choice obviously).

FJRider

5th June 2015, 19:22

... Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

It does receive robust discussion and debate but it is a complicated subject but it is fraught, I my self I are in favour of it, but the whole legality of it needs to be correctly framed around it.

It is not complicated at all ...

Regardless of your belief as to the ethics, morality or legality ... if you are prepared to take responsibility for your actions and possible ramifications ... all good .. eh .. !!!

Erelyes

5th June 2015, 19:26

The common-denominator-relevance is that once a group decides that a particular habit or practice or lifestyle (whether being gay, sitting legs apart, no baking for gay weddings) shall be not only allowed or required but the allowance or requirement enforced - because they = the biens-pensants know what's best for the rest of us - and get the full force of the Government to enforce their intolerance, then everything can be made mandatory and punishable. And punishable by up to and including death.

One wonders if, upon the ushering in of the practice of kidney transplants, people were worried that they would be forced to donate a kidney if so required by the State.

You're presuming that the practice of euthanasia will become not just an 'alternative possibility', but a mandate. Not so.

(BTW: I've got nothing against gay people contracting a lifelong relationship, although I would prefer they used their own word rather than marriage - which has for a very long time meant a unique partnership between man and woman.

Fair opinion. That said, once upon a time, 'having sex' referred soley to the act between man and wife (indeed, marriage was required). To some, 'Bully' is an adjective. The meaning of words changes.

Katman

5th June 2015, 19:29

One wonders if, upon the ushering in of the practice of kidney transplants, people were worried that they would be forced to donate a kidney if so required by the State.

You're presuming that the practice of euthanasia will become not just an 'alternative possibility', but a mandate. Not so.

Fair opinion. That said, once upon a time, 'having sex' referred soley to the act between man and wife (indeed, marriage was required). To some, 'Bully' is an adjective. The meaning of words changes.

It doesn't take a fucking rocket surgeon, does it?

husaberg

5th June 2015, 20:00

Perhaps this is a distinction that you are reading to thinly?

Ethics are very complicated an often legislated. That does not proclude you from having other ethical barriers from your moral beliefs.

Just because soemthing is included in law to be ethical doesnt make it moral.
Just because something is inlcuded in law to be ethical doesnt make it ethical either.

Like I said you clearly don't know the difference.

It is not complicated at all ...

Regardless of your belief as to the ethics, morality or legality ... if you are prepared to take responsibility for your actions and possible ramifications ... all good .. eh .. !!!

yeah not really at all

husaberg

5th June 2015, 20:08

What the fuck has my business got to do with euthanasia?

(Other than your first choice obviously).

A bit precious aren't we, I note you still haven't answered the question though on the third or is it 4th occasion.:bleh:

It doesn't take a fucking rocket surgeon, does it?
Leaves you out then aye. Got anymore free energy hoax's that we should all buy into for free.
That the government and big oil and the Jews are keeping quiet from us.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuel

gjm

5th June 2015, 21:18

I spent some time this afternoon reading through the background to the decisions made.

Leaving aside any personal feelings on the matter, the judge was correct. He made a ruling in accordance with the law as it stands. The law may be an ass, but it is still the law and the judge's duty is to rule accordingly. There's no room in the ruling for emotion or opinion.

Should the law be changed? Personally, and based on my experience, I think there should be provision for assistance in some circumstances. I think 'Right to Life' is wrong... In some cases. Any provision in law for assistance should obviously also protect those who are vulnerable, and RtL seem to think that wouldn't happen. Maybe they're right, but I hope not.

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 21:25

A bit precious aren't we, I note you still haven't answered the question though on the third or is it 4th occasion.:bleh:

Leaves you out then aye. Got anymore free energy hoax's that we should all buy into for free.
That the government and big oil and the Jews are keeping quiet from us.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuel

And this is why I believe this topic never really gets a fair shake at open and robust discussion.
It is such an emotive position people quickly stake their claim and then proceed to misinterpret or just plain ignore the other side. It descends into pedantry about the differences between irrelevant bits instead of looking at it with an open mind and then sooner or later it ends up in the too hard basket until someone else raises the topic.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't care about the difference between morality and ethics in the context of this discussion because I am not sufficiently informed about medical ethics to comment.

I do know when the respective times came for my brother, mother and father the question was never will they die or even will they ever leave the hospital. The question was how much must they suffer before it is over?
How long do we keep them alive artificially and suffering, knowing there is no hope?

All I know 100%:
I am glad they died different years.
I am glad none of them asked me to end it.
I am glad the doctors took their comfort over their longevity.
I am not looking forward to the day some time soon (it will be within the next five years) when another brother will go into palliative care.
I am not looking forward to the day in 10-20 years that the same happens to my sister.

Cancer took my parents.
Muscular dystrophy is taking my siblings.
I see the way my brother and sister look at me. The only healthy one.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Erelyes

5th June 2015, 21:40

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service. This element of compulsion allows no room for personal ethics.

I agree compelling someone to act as an executioner is repugnant.

Here is the crux of the whole fucking thread, i.e., that the anti-euthenasia arguments are difficult to understand. See post #1.

Namely, I simply don't understand why those with anti-euthanasia views, claim that those in favour want to 'force' doctors to kill people.

That isn't the fucking case, I don't think anyone has said it is, and by bringing in a straw-man argument, you start looking like zealots.

Our state gives citizens the opportunity to defend it via military service, yet it does not compel those whose code of ethics prohibit it.
Our state gives doctors the opportunity to perform abortions, yet it does not compel those whose code of ethics prohibit it. (Note - getting another doctor to do it is not compelling the original doctor. I really hope you understand this.)
All that pro-euth arguers are asking for is the exact fucking same. And it's simple. Add the right for it to be done, whilst still upholding the right to not have to do it.

P.S. Even I would fight tooth and nail against any legislation that would 'force' you to assist someone's death.

As would I. There's nothing more that grinds my gears, than cunts that complain about their neighbour flying a foreign flag, putting a Buddha statue in their yard, or otherwise exercising their right to hold a different view than the status quo. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (E. Hall).

So now, can we all agree on what we actually want, and those who are anti-euth stick to the fuckin' argument as it stands rather than driving it off a cliff?

Things are really black and white which is why Katmaam has trouble with what is a complicated topic not fitting his own over simplistic views.

So you're saying things are black and white, yet his views are simplistic? Righto bud

husaberg

5th June 2015, 21:42

And this is why I believe this topic never really gets a fair shake at open and robust discussion.
It is such an emotive position people quickly stake their claim and then proceed to misinterpret or just plain ignore the other side. It descends into pedantry about the differences between irrelevant bits instead of looking at it with an open mind and then sooner or later it ends up in the too hard basket until someone else raises the topic.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't care about the difference between morality and ethics in the context of this discussion because I am not sufficiently informed about medical ethics to comment.

.

The simple difference with morality and ethics is if someone is ordered or obligated to take a life ergo ethics can override ones morality.
Katmams will not answer the question about whether he has a retail part of his shop as he then leaves himself open to, do you feel that you are entitled to deny to serve someone.
To which he will reply fuck yes i will serve who I please.
Then someone will say but you can't say you can do this, Yet at the same time a marriage celebrant or a florist or a baker can made to sell or do a service they don't wish to.
After all he says a doctor can't be forced to euthanise someone yet he can't see how this same will occur.
Then later says this.

Bullshit - yet again.
Your job is to do the best for your patient.
If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

Everyone's morality is different like I said I believe it should be an option but needs extremely careful consideration.
Katmams always bleating on about how many innocent people are sent to jail or put on death row yet, does not the medical establishment also make mistakes with both diagnosis and prognosis.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 21:43

So you're saying things are black and white, yet his views are simplistic? Righto bud

Rarely black and white autocorrect kind of miffed it dude..
I meant things are rarely black and white..........
I think you should have a re read of the post to see.

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 21:47

The simple difference with morality and ethics is if someone is ordered or obligated to take a life ergo ethics can override ones morality.
Katmams will not answer the question about whether he has a retail part of his shop as he then leaves himself open to, do you feel that you are entitled to deny to serve someone.
To which he will reply fuck yes i will serve who I please.
Then someone will say but you can't say you can do this, Yet at the same time a marriage celebrant or a florist or a baker can made to sell or do a service they don't wish to.
After all he says a doctor can't be forced to euthanise someone yet he can't see how this same will occur.

Everyone's morality is different like I said I believe it should be an option but needs extremely careful consideration.
Katmams always bleating on about how many innocent people are sent to jail or put on death row yet odes not the medical establishment also make mistakes with both diagnosis and prognosis

Yes, when your gazing upon your father who was athletic and active six months ago now looking like a survivor of Auschwitz there is no doubt prognosis is at least close.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 21:51

Yes, when your gazing upon your father who was athletic and active six months ago now looking like a survivor of Auschwitz there is no doubt prognosis is at least close.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

I am well acquainted with palliative care yet I am also mindfull as soon as the door is open it is the thin end of the wedge.
If you go back through my posts you will see I are in favour of it.
It just need to be implemented in a careful manner so it does not open Pandora's box.

Katman

5th June 2015, 21:52

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 21:53

I am well acquainted with palliative care yet I am also mindfull as soon as the door is open it is the thin end of the wedge.
If you go back through my posts you will see I are in favour of it.
It just need to be implemented in a careful manner so it does not open Pandora's box.

And I am saying that those working in palliative care deserve legal protection when they do what needs to be done.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 21:55

You still haven't sought any help, have you?

Meh I am still waiting for you free energy to kick in, are the big oil companies still trying to make out he is a fraud lol.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuel

husaberg

5th June 2015, 22:01

And I am saying that those working in palliative care deserve legal protection when they do what needs to be done.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Last line of what you quoted re read it, the two death with dignity bills would have covered them.
Yet peoples own individual morality on the issue also needs to be protected as much if not more than the patients also.

Big Dog

5th June 2015, 22:27

Last line of what you quoted re read it, the two death with dignity bills would have covered them.
Yet peoples own individual morality on the issue also needs to be protected as much if not more than the patients also.

I read it.
I comprehended it.
So why not focus on that part instead of focusing on a lay mans use of terms that have different meanings outside the medical and legal fields?

Like I said, the message is getting lost in the passion.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

husaberg

5th June 2015, 22:51

I read it.
I comprehended it.
So why not focus on that part instead of focusing on a lay mans use of terms that have different meanings outside the medical and legal fields?

Like I said, the message is getting lost in the passion.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

The message gets lost because people take a simplistic view to what is an emotive issue one that has potential far reaching moral implications it is not a subject that needs or deserves to be rushed.
Consider the first post in this thread.

Try as I might, I cannot understand what argument people can have against euthanasia.

Any ideas?

jasonu

6th June 2015, 03:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD0LBgalMVQ

Katman

6th June 2015, 08:17

Katmams will not answer the question about whether he has a retail part of his shop as he then leaves himself open to, do you feel that you are entitled to deny to serve someone.
To which he will reply fuck yes i will serve who I please.
Then someone will say but you can't say you can do this, Yet at the same time a marriage celebrant or a florist or a baker can made to sell or do a service they don't wish to.
After all he says a doctor can't be forced to euthanise someone yet he can't see how this same will occur.

Let's take a closer look at RDJ's flawed analogy.

If the poor baker couple had said "sorry, we're far too busy to be able to fit in baking you a wedding cake" there would have been no lawsuit. One can only assume they said "no, we will not bake you a wedding cake because we don't believe in gay marriage".

Whether you like it or not, that's discrimination and that's what the couple are facing the fine for - not simply because they didn't bake a cake.

If someone came into my shop and acted like an arrogant wanker I would be quite within my rights to refuse to serve them. If a gay person came in and I said "sorry, I don't serve gay people" then I would very likely face prosecution - and rightly so.

Do you understand now?

caseye

6th June 2015, 08:44

Let's take a closer look at RDJ's flawed analogy.

If the poor baker couple had said "sorry, we're far too busy to be able to fit in baking you a wedding cake" there would have been no lawsuit. One can only assume they said "no, we will not bake you a wedding cake because we don't believe in gay marriage".

Whether you like it or not, that's discrimination and that's what the couple are facing the fine for - not simply because they didn't bake a cake.

If someone came into my shop and acted like an arrogant wanker I would be quite within my rights to refuse to serve them. If a gay person came in and I said "sorry, I don't serve gay people" then I would very likely face prosecution - and rightly so.

Do you understand now?

Why rightly so Steve.
You can't be locked up/ knocked up or charged for holding your own opinions and even if you do own a shop of any sort it is your perogative to serve or not anyone you choose.
Last time I looked that was still the case.
Now, I asked knowing full well the answer.
The 1%'er poofs, lesbo's and other freaks out there have for so long bemoaned their unnatural position in the world that we've all become totally desensitised to them, easier to roll over and be nice than to say " Nope, I don't agree with you, I reserve the right to or not to do anything for you"
We've made the rod for our own backs.
I live freely amongst men and women who are not necessarily either, I have no problem conversing with anyone on any subject, but when I get individuals pushing their beliefs, be they religious, sexist, or otherwise, I opt out, I say I'm not interested, I have my own views and I'm sticking to them thank you very much.
Generally I've not had too many adverse reactions but the ones I have had have always been the but I'm different sweety types.

husaberg

6th June 2015, 08:51

Katman

6th June 2015, 09:05

The 1%'er poofs, lesbo's and other freaks out there have for so long bemoaned their unnatural position in the world.....

Let me just be the first to say - you fucking disgust me.

Katman

6th June 2015, 09:17

Blah, blah, blah.....

Lecretia Seales wasn't fighting to force doctors to assist people's deaths. No sane person would fight for that.

She was fighting to ensure that doctors, who are willing to assist their terminally ill patient's reasoned decision to end their life at a time of their choosing, don't face prosecution for it.

Anyone who tries to argue against that principal is a fucking moron.

(I've high-lighted certain words in the hope that it may help you understand).

Katman

6th June 2015, 09:40

Those people have made a judgement based on there morals the fact I or you don't agree if them is irrelevant their morals are their own.

Then they deserve the fine based simply on the grounds of their extreme stupidity.

If they'd kept their bigotry to themselves they'd still be happily baking cakes.

After all he says a doctor can't be forced to euthanise someone yet he can't see how this same will occur.

Do you know that for a fact, do you?

Katman

6th June 2015, 09:48

Why rightly so Steve.
You can't be locked up/ knocked up or charged for holding your own opinions and even if you do own a shop of any sort it is your perogative to serve or not anyone you choose.

In case anyone is actually wondering.....

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html

RDJ

6th June 2015, 10:45

Let's take a closer look at RDJ's flawed analogy.

If the poor baker couple had said "sorry, we're far too busy to be able to fit in baking you a wedding cake" there would have been no lawsuit. One can only assume they said "no, we will not bake you a wedding cake because we don't believe in gay marriage".

Whether you like it or not, that's discrimination and that's what the couple are facing the fine for - not simply because they didn't bake a cake.

If someone came into my shop and acted like an arrogant wanker I would be quite within my rights to refuse to serve them. If a gay person came in and I said "sorry, I don't serve gay people" then I would very likely face prosecution - and rightly so.

Do you understand now?

Katman: the word discrimination does not mean what you think it means. In this case, the market should apply. You don't have to market services to someone whom you don't want to, "the management reserve the right to refuse service to anybody". There are many other bakers who will be happy to bake any cake, why do you want to punish this one because their beliefs are different from yours?

The law protects people from illegal discrimination. For example, it is illegal, and rightly so, to discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour. It is not illegal, and it shouldn't be, to discriminate against people on the basis of their beliefs.

The law does not protect people from all discrimination. Otherwise, people who won sporting events could be sued. But by all means, continue to regard such analogies as flawed. No one will discriminate against you for your lack of understanding.

Katman

6th June 2015, 10:48

The law protects people from illegal discrimination. For example, it is illegal, and rightly so, to discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour. It is not illegal, and it shouldn't be, to discriminate against people on the basis of their beliefs.

Did you not read the link in my previous post?

The law does not protect people from all discrimination. Otherwise, people who won sporting events could be sued.

:facepalm:

Perhaps you should stick to being a doctor.

husaberg

6th June 2015, 11:39

Blah blah normal Katamorangatan not listening to stuff he doesn't want to admit to not considering or even trying to understand is not simple
Anyone who tries to argue against something The mighty Katamamrangatan believes in is a fucking moron.

(I've high-lighted certain words in the hope that it may help you understand).

Wow a traditional Katamerangatan simplistic sarcastic narcissistic view, now who would have predicted that.

Did you not read the link in my previous post?

:facepalm:

Perhaps you should stick to being a doctor.
Idiot these people are being prosecuted and persecuted for their own beliefs are you that thick you can't see that.

Perhaps you should stick to your free energy finds.
You know the ones big oil try's to cover up like 911 and all your other conspiracies and threads about how all cops are corrupt and jails are chocked full of innocent people .
Anyone who cares to see how Katman mind works or how it doesn't should read all of this thread.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuel

Katman

6th June 2015, 11:48

Anyone who cares to see how Katman mind works or how it doesn't should read all of this thread.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuel

You're obsessed, aren't you?

Katman

6th June 2015, 12:13

Idiot these people are being prosecuted and persecuted for their own beliefs are you that thick you can't see that.

No, they're not.

They're being prosecuted because they discriminated against a gay couple.

If they'd had the sense to keep their beliefs to themselves, and instead simply made an excuse of being too busy to bake a cake, do you think they'd still be facing prosecution?

husaberg

6th June 2015, 17:26

You're obsessed, aren't you?
Says the guy that start the threads like ones such as just to piss Maha off.
I just enjoy pointed out how gullible you are, how you thing everyone's out to get you how everything is a conspiracy.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuel
we told you right from the start it was a fraud a common hoax but no you were onto the real deal weren't you.
Did you buy the plans and build one yet.

No, they're not.

They're being prosecuted because they discriminated against a gay couple.

If they'd had the sense to keep their beliefs to themselves, and instead simply made an excuse of being too busy to bake a cake, do you think they'd still be facing prosecution?

Medical professional don't get to pick and choice who they treat, you might want to consider some treatment options yourself.
Shame you are not able to comprehend that. Ask them for help they are obliged to help regards of whether they consider you a prick or not.
You just gave the perfect example that they are being persecuted for what is their moral beliefs then said they should lie about it.

And yet you accuse me of not understanding the meaning of the word 'discrimination'.:facepalm:

See have you have highlight the me, does it smite you that someone disagrees with your over simplistic view and considers your opinion simplistic and lacking in foresight.
By what you post you clearly have no comprehension of what discrimination is, which is apt considering you have a persecution complex.

James Deuce

6th June 2015, 17:59

Crasherfromwayback

6th June 2015, 18:01

They do it already. Ever increasing doses of morphine for "pain relief".

I reckon. See post # 95

FJRider

6th June 2015, 18:40

Gremlin

6th June 2015, 22:42

The thread is descending into personal attacks rather than intelligently debating the original topic.

The dribble has been removed, so keep it on topic.

jasonu

7th June 2015, 03:50

The thread is descending into personal attacks rather than intelligently debating the original topic.

The dribble has been removed, so keep it on topic.

Spoil Sport!!!!!

Maha

7th June 2015, 08:39

The thread is descending into personal attacks rather than intelligently debating the original topic.

The dribble has been removed, so keep it on topic.

Unlikely given the contributors.

Katman

7th June 2015, 10:01

The simple difference with morality and ethics is if someone is ordered or obligated to take a life ergo ethics can override ones morality.

I have not heard one single supporter of euthanasia law reform propose that any doctor should be ordered or obligated against their will to assist someone's death.

So why do idiots still put forward such a ridiculous argument?

Bassmatt

7th June 2015, 10:17

husaberg

7th June 2015, 11:26

I have not heard one single supporter of euthanasia law reform propose that any doctor should be ordered or obligated against their will to assist someone's death.

So why do idiots still put forward such a ridiculous argument?

You mean other than your own one cretin. Are you seriously that lacking in insight into what it is you post?

Bullshit - yet again.
Your job is to do the best for your patient.
If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

I can't answer for you. As a definition of a idiot is someone who because they are not that bright does not consider consequences. An idiot does not listen to what is in front of them an idiot is someone who thinks their own opinion is always correct. In case you missed this I am referring to you.
How many people before the marriage reforms said that florists and bakers and celebrants would be persecuted for refusing to perform duties on account of their own moral beliefs.

Yet when it is pointed out to you now that it occurs You put forward your own argument that they were idiots for saying this is why they would not perform these services rather than their moral beliefs.

Yet conversely how many people that have assisted in euthanasia here prosecuted, when they have not loudly and publicly publicised what they have done.
When someone points out flaws in your lack of forethought and reasoning you resort to your fall back position of abuse.
As I have said I support a carefully managed implementation and application of euthanasia with robust laws to support and protect peoples moral beliefs but you are too busy beating off to listen to that.

Katman

7th June 2015, 11:36

How many people before the marriage reforms said that florists and bakers and celebrants would be persecuted for refusing to perform duties on account of their own moral beliefs.

I have already pointed out that people have been prosecuted for discriminating against a person's sexual orientation long before gay marriage ever became an issue.

Try and get this into your head - the baker couple are facing prosecution for refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple.

That is clearly defined as prohibited discrimination in the Human Rights Act.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 11:45

Do you not understand English?

I have already pointed out that people have been prosecuted for discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation long before gay marriage ever became an issue.

Try and get this into your head - the baker couple are facing prosecution for refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple.

That is clearly defined as prohibited discrimination.

It was in case you missed it a Wedding cake, He said, he was more them happy to sell then anything else.(As long as it was not for a same sex marriage ceremony as it was against his religious beliefs)
He is then being persecuted on account of his moral beliefs. You are unable to see that as it does not suit you. Yet you freely bleat on how you are entitled to serve who ever you want.

Like I said you ignore anything that does not suit or highlights the holes in your argument why should you change after all.
I gave a series of examples you ignored them.

re your later edit. Like I say in the real world things are not as black and white as you make out.

Article 9(1) protects the right of individuals to hold religious and other beliefs,

and to practise them alone or with other people. It also protects people’s right

to freedom of conscience, and the right to follow one’s own ethical and moral

principles in one’s actions. The right to hold, as distinct from to manifest,

religious and other beliefs is an absolute right

Katman

7th June 2015, 11:46

.....he was more them happy to sell then anything else.

And you know that how?

Why do you make shit up and imply it's fact?

husaberg

7th June 2015, 12:01

And you know that how?

Why do you make shit up and imply it's fact?

Because this is what he said you did not actually bother to read it. Like I keep telling you things are not always as simple as you.

because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
Whilst I might not agree with this, I go along with his fundamental right to stick to his own moral and religous beliefs regardless of the consequences, why should he have to lie about the reasons for making it.
As Katmam had said he would as it was his right to if he whished and decided to deny service to anyone he see's fit.

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

FJRider

7th June 2015, 12:05

He is then being discriminated against on account of his moral beliefs.

Actually ... he was discriminated against ... on account of his sexual orientation.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html

(m) sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 12:08

Actually ... he was discriminated against ... on account of his sexual orientation.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html

(m) sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.

Maybe not but...

FJRider

7th June 2015, 12:24

Maybe not but...

Just another case of one's arrogance of ignoring the ledgislation that doesn't suit/doesn't like ... at the time.

However ... the couples lack of respect for the bakers personal beliefs does not sit well with me either. (They discriminated against HIS religious beliefs)

They could have just gone and found another baker ...

Katman

7th June 2015, 12:26

Yet you freely bleat on how you are entitled to serve who ever you want.

Read this carefully - I'll try to use simple words.

If I was opposed to gay people and I had a gay person come into my shop and ask for a particular helmet in a particular size I could go to the computer and say "sorry, the wholesaler doesn't have one of them available". Whether it was true or not I would be unlikely to be prosecuted.

If I said "no, I don't serve gay people, go somewhere else" then I would very likely face prosecution.

Understand now?

Katman

7th June 2015, 12:34

And to clarify the issue of prohibited discrimination versus allowed discrimination........

The forms of discrimination that are prohibited are clearly listed in the Human Rights Act.

Restaurants are allowed to have a minimum dress code - therefore they are allowed to discriminate against people wanting to eat there dressed in a singlet.

Bars are not permitted to serve intoxicated people - therefore they are allowed to discriminate against people who have drunk too much.

And to use my earlier example, if a customer comes into my business acting like an abusive wanker I'm allowed to discriminate against them based on them being an abusive wanker.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 13:09

Read this carefully - I'll try to use simple words.

If I was opposed to gay people and I had a gay person come into my shop and ask for a particular helmet in a particular size I could go to the computer and say "sorry, the wholesaler doesn't have one of them available". Whether it was true or not I would be unlikely to be prosecuted.

If I said "no, I don't serve gay people, go somewhere else" then I would very likely face prosecution.

Understand now?
I note you never use words a 10 year old would never understand yet my 7 year old has more capability of grasping the concept that people are entitled to their own opinions regardless of whether they agree with Katman or not.
I understand that you think that someone can deny service because of their morals as long as like you have said they should as you said you would lie about it can you not see the flaw in your over simplistic argument (I doubt you can or ever will)

NB: If you are not prepared to 100% agree with the narcissistic OP, then there is little point in posting in his threads, he even has little time for his own siblings point of view, because it not his.

PS: His rep comment suggest I got it right ..'Fuck off cocksucker.'

why do you insist on devaluing any argument or case you have by descending into mindless name calling of those who express an opinion or take a position other than your own? You asked for the man's position and he provided it. Rather than engage in actual debate you dismiss the very thing you sought. That is senseless!

You present this social conundrum as being simple to solve. Entire nations have struggled with this question long before you began to think about it and none have yet come up with a flawless system to allow those with genuine desire to control how they meet their end, while still protecting the vulnerable.
You have had a personal experience which has clearly influenced your thinking and attitudes, understandably so, and noone has the right to question or detract the validity of your experience or the resulting mindset which has developed from it. Why should anyone else expect less, just because their attitude does not align with yours?

Yeah, Katman - but every now and then you could, you know, try to debate the facts instead of trotting out the tired old ad hominem fuckwitschtick? The relevance of the analogies is the desire of your ilk to enforce your beliefs on other people who then you demand implement them. Or else. And the 'Or Else' enforced by Government Diktat.

I also note you changed your post from yesterday I would never expect any less from you.

Madness

7th June 2015, 13:26

my 7 year old...

Someone bred with you? The world is more fucked than I thought.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 13:34

Someone bred with you? The world is more fucked than I thought.
No one I am aware of has ever accused you of being capable of rational thought patterns.
Just a series of abusive trolling for your own enjoyment, to make up for the overwhelming feelings of your own inadequacy.

I just come here to wind up fuckwits like yourself.

No, I meant that I come here to wind up fuckwits such as yourself and the measure of satisfaction or success in this lies with me, not you or the other fuckwits.

Feel free to continue in PD rather than cluttering up the thread though.

Madness

7th June 2015, 13:36

No one I am aware of has ever accused you of being capable of rational thought patterns.
just a series of abusive trolling for your own enjoyment, to make up for the overwhelming feelings of your own inadequacy.

So you didn't put that call through this morning then? That's a shame. Think of your 7 year old.

Katman

7th June 2015, 14:10

..... yet my 7 year old has more capability of grasping the concept that people are entitled to theier own opinions.....

Hopefully you will ensure that your 7 year old will also one day grasp the concept that while people most certainly are entitled to their own opinions they are not entitled to use those opinions to discriminate against anyone on the basis of any of the listed prohibited grounds for discrimination.

If the baker couple had learnt that simple rule they wouldn't be having the need for their little grizzle now.

And now that we've finally cleared up your misunderstanding of what constitutes prohibited discrimination, maybe we can get back to discussing how we could best implement new euthanasia laws.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 15:05

Hopefully you will ensure that your 7 year old will also one day grasp the concept that while people most certainly are entitled to their own opinions they are not entitled to use those opinions to discriminate against anyone on the basis of any of the listed prohibited grounds for discrimination.

If the baker couple had learnt that simple rule they wouldn't be having the need for their little grizzle now.

And now that we've finally cleared up your misunderstanding of what constitutes prohibited discrimination, maybe we can get back to discussing how we could best implement new euthanasia laws.

You are the person who introduced discrimination to the argument not me

Medical professional don't get to pick and choice who they treat.
Shame you are not able to comprehend that. Ask them for help they are obliged to help.

Bullshit - yet again.
Your job is to do the best for your patient.
If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

You have repeatedly ignored examples that people are being persecuted for what is their moral beliefs, then then deride people you say they are silly because you would just lie about the reasons if put in a similar situation.
This speaks volumes and shows a lack of fortitude plus a total lack of courage.

I doubt anything you ever say will ever be taken seriously by any mature adult, because you do not comprehend that people are not obliged to have your moral interpretations forced on them.
Like I said a couple of posts above I would not expect you to ever be able to understand or comprehend that.

Katman

7th June 2015, 18:19

You are the person who introduced discrimination to the argument not me

Yes, but you were the one who didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

Anyways, shut the fuck up about discrimination and let's talk about how to reform the euthanasia laws.

Bill English has come out and said he will not support law reform.

Why would that be?

husaberg

7th June 2015, 18:27

Yes, but you were the one who didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

Anyways, shut the fuck up about discrimination and let's talk about how to reform the euthanasia laws.

Bill English has come out and said he will not support law reform.

Why would that be?

Who other than you is bleating on about discrimination ..........
Last time I looked you are not in any position to order anyone to do anything. Grow up.
Go back through your posts and have a gander at how often you make conflicting statements.
Why don't you ask Bill English, unless you already believe you know the answer to what his thoughts are?

I have not heard one single supporter of euthanasia law reform propose that any doctor should be ordered or obligated against their will to assist someone's death.
So why do idiots still put forward such a ridiculous argument?

Bullshit - yet again.
Your job is to do the best for your patient.
If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

I have not heard one single supporter of euthanasia law reform propose that any doctor should be ordered or obligated against their will to assist someone's death.

So why do idiots still put forward such a ridiculous argument?

If I was opposed to gay people and I had a gay person come into my shop and ask for a particular helmet in a particular size I could go to the computer and say "sorry, the wholesaler doesn't have one of them available". Whether it was true or not I would be unlikely to be prosecuted.

No, they're not.

They're being prosecuted because they discriminated against a gay couple.
If they'd had the sense to keep their beliefs to themselves, and instead simply made an excuse of being too busy to bake a cake, do you think they'd still be facing prosecution?

Yet conversely how many people that have assisted in euthanasia here prosecuted, when they have not loudly and publicly publicised what they have done.
As I have said I support a carefully managed implementation and application of euthanasia with robust laws to support and protect peoples moral beliefs.

People who have firm moral and courage do not often lie as to what they are. I would not expect you to ever be able to understand that.

Katman

7th June 2015, 18:34

Go back through your posts and have a gander at how often you make conflicting statements.

Show me the conflicting statements and I'll attempt to resolve them in a manner that your brain may be able to cope with.

I'm in a generous mood.

Erelyes

7th June 2015, 19:10

Based on PMs with husaberg after I red repped him, I think the bit he's having trouble with (based on him bolding it) is:

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

He seems to think this means the doctor saying "Now lie down on the bed, I'm going to euth you".

Where in actual fact it means, like any other scenario, a doctor outlining the patient's options, and letting the patient decide. Viz.;
- You can request euthanasia
- You can elect to let nature take its course.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 19:19

Based on PMs with husaberg after I red repped him, I think the bit he's having trouble with (based on him bolding it) is:

He seems to think this means the doctor saying "Now lie down on the bed, I'm going to euth you".

Where in actual fact it means, like any other scenario, a doctor outlining the patient's options, and letting the patient decide. Viz.;
- You can request euthanasia
- You can elect to let nature take its course.

Incorrect I do not..

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

Letting the patient decide is giving the doctor nothing to offer but the patients choice of death. It is that simple.
This is outside the moral convictions of a large number of medical professionals as well a a huge number of other people.
As he said your choice (in referring to a medical professional that had posted) your job is do the best for the patient

AS have freely and repeatedly stated I support euthanasia but only with robust protocols such as those with abortion

I have even said all this to you in a pm it is you that clearly having issues comprehending what is a pretty basic concept

Katman

7th June 2015, 19:23

People who have firm moral and courage do not often lie as to what they are. I would not expect you to ever be able to understand that.

Dude, where did I ever say that I would lie?

I gave a hypothethical example of avoiding a lawsuit.

You seriously seem to live in another dimension.

Katman

7th June 2015, 19:29

Madness

7th June 2015, 19:42

Letting the patient decide is giving the doctor nothing to offer but the patients choice of death.

But the patient should only be given the option to choose when the doctors have exhausted all options and there's no other option but to suffer a prolonged death. The conflict with an individuals morals is a non-issue too, do all doctors perform brain surgery?

It is that simple.

Exactly. At last.

Erelyes

7th June 2015, 19:47

husaberg

7th June 2015, 20:26

I'm just going to leave this here. (http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/advice/abortion/the-law-around-abortion)

A doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion is not required to assist in the performance of an abortion and, under a December 2010 High Court ruling, may also refuse to refer you for assessment.
However, the doctor must inform you that you can obtain the service from another health care provider.

Seems to me, and I'd hope, the same approach would be taken with an issue as knicker-twisting as Euthanasia.

Can we now get away from this fucking 'shoving euthanasia down doctor's throats' presumption?

How insightful I tell you to actually read the actual abortion law and all of a sudden you knew it all along anyway...........

Incorrect I do not..

Letting the patient decide is giving the doctor nothing to offer but the patients choice of death. It is that simple.
This is outside the moral convictions of a large number of medical professionals as well a a huge number of other people.
As he said your choice (in referring to a medical professional that had posted) your job is do the best for the patient

As have freely and repeatedly stated I support euthanasia but only with robust protocols such as those with abortion

I have even said all this to you in a pm it is you that clearly having issues comprehending what is a pretty basic concept

It does receive robust discussion and debate but it is a complicated subject but it is fraught, I myself I are in favour of it, but the whole legality of it needs to be correctly framed around it.

As I have said I support a carefully managed implementation and application of euthanasia with robust laws to support and protect peoples moral beliefs but you are too busy beating off to listen to that.

Last line of what you quoted re read it, the two death with dignity bills would have covered them.
Yet peoples own individual morality on the issue also needs to be protected as much if not more than the patients also.

I am well acquainted with palliative care yet I am also mindfull as soon as the door is open it is the thin end of the wedge.
If you go back through my posts you will see I are in favour of it.
It just need to be implemented in a careful manner so it does not open Pandora's box.

Erelyes

7th June 2015, 21:01

How insightful I tell you to actually read the actual abortion law and all of a sudden you knew it all along anyway...........

Or more like: I said a doctor can't be forced to perform an abortion.

You said I should read the law before using it as an example.

Since you didn't bother with sources I found one for you, which funnily enough, backs up what I said.

Meh, I'm gonna watch from here on in.

Berries

7th June 2015, 21:03

I have just read the last few pages.

Someone kill me.

Katman

7th June 2015, 21:08

Someone kill me.

Believe it or not, we're not allowed.

husaberg

7th June 2015, 21:14

Or more like: I said a doctor can't be forced to perform an abortion.

You said I should read the law before using it as an example.

Since you didn't bother with sources I found one for you, which funnily enough, backs up what I said.

Meh, I'm gonna watch from here on in.

Gee it almost makes me wish I had said stuff like this then:brick:

Incorrect I do not..

Letting the patient decide is giving the doctor nothing to offer but the patients choice of death. It is that simple.
This is outside the moral convictions of a large number of medical professionals as well a a huge number of other people.
As he said your choice (in referring to a medical professional that had posted) your job is do the best for the patient

As have freely and repeatedly stated I support euthanasia but only with robust protocols such as those with abortion

I have even said all this to you in a pm it is you that clearly having issues comprehending what is a pretty basic concept

It does receive robust discussion and debate but it is a complicated subject but it is fraught, I myself I are in favour of it, but the whole legality of it needs to be correctly framed around it.

As I have said I support a carefully managed implementation and application of euthanasia with robust laws to support and protect peoples moral beliefs but you are too busy beating off to listen to that.

I am well acquainted with palliative care yet I am also mindfull as soon as the door is open it is the thin end of the wedge.
If you go back through my posts you will see I are in favour of it.
It just need to be implemented in a careful manner so it does not open Pandora's box.

Last line of what you quoted re read it, the two death with dignity bills would have covered them.
Yet peoples own individual morality on the issue also needs to be protected as much if not more than the patients also.

Katman

7th June 2015, 21:19

Virago

7th June 2015, 21:28

I wish I had posted in this thread. I've missed the opportunity to quote myself over and over ad nauseam.

Katman

7th June 2015, 21:29

I wish I had posted in this thread. I've missed the opportunity to quote myself over and over ad nauseam.

It's the place that just keeps giving and giving.

bogan

7th June 2015, 21:44

jonbuoy

9th June 2015, 03:35

It happens more than most people think already. Usually under the guise of pain relief.

Katman

9th June 2015, 08:02

It happens more than most people think already. Usually under the guise of pain relief.

That may be so, but the problem is that the doctor or nurse that administers that extra dose of 'pain relief' (as an act of compassion) exposes themselves to the potential of prosecution and a prison sentence.

James Deuce

9th June 2015, 09:16

That may be so, but the problem is that the doctor or nurse that administers that extra dose of 'pain relief' (as an act of compassion) exposes themselves to the potential of prosecution and a prison sentence.

Not if they are doing their job right. Those that get done for that have done it illegally.

Katman

9th June 2015, 09:31

Not if they are doing their job right. Those that get done for that have done it illegally.

Sorry Jim (and I know your wife is a nurse) but I suspect you're wrong.

I think as it currently stands, if a doctor or nurse knowingly administers an overdose of pain relief, according to the law they are acting illegally - whether they are acting out of compassion or even if they have the permission of family members.

(I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can point to legislation showing that).

James Deuce

9th June 2015, 09:33

That's exactly what I'm saying. If they administer it out of compassion, they are doing their job wrong and deserve the punishment. The treatment regime for end-stage palliative care is designed to accelerate organ failure cascade while keeping the patient pain free. Just follow the process and you're covered.

Katman

9th June 2015, 09:41

The treatment regime for end-stage palliative care is designed to accelerate organ failure cascade....

That's interesting. I've not been aware of that.

Do you have a link you can share that explains that concept in detail?

Maha

9th June 2015, 09:49

Not if they are doing their job right. Those that get done for that have done it illegally.

I suspect you are right Jim. Any Doctor or Nurse will NOT knowingly administers an overdose of pain relief. Operating under the Hippocratic Oath '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'. keeping the failing loved one pain free in the final hours, is doing so within the parameters of that oath.

Anyone who contests the actions of a Doctor or Nurse during those final hours, has a selfish self worth.

Katman

9th June 2015, 09:55

Any Doctor or Nurse will NOT knowingly administers an overdose of pain relief.

You know that for a fact, do you?

Maha

9th June 2015, 10:09

You know that for a fact, do you?

Yip, In keeping with the oath that they are acting under, they (the Doctor/s) know what the outcome will be (as do the gathered family member) when the Morphine is increased.

Maha

9th June 2015, 10:10

Do you have a link you can share that explains that concept in detail?

Translation: I wont believe you until you can provide absolute proof.

Katman

9th June 2015, 10:18

Yip, In keeping with the oath that they are acting under, they (the Doctor/s) know what the outcome will be (as do the gathered family member) when the Morphine is increased.

So when does the increase of Morphine dosage become more than is required to relieve pain?

Or do the doctors just guess?

Katman

9th June 2015, 10:24

And let's not forget that while we're talking about increasing morphine dosages we're still talking about lingering death.

The real matter here is whether a terminally ill person should have the right in their finals days to say "right then, I love you all, but I'm going now. Bye".

I believe they should have that right - as do a great many others.

That is what is thread is actually about.

TheDemonLord

9th June 2015, 10:24

So when does the increase of Morphine dosage become more than is required to relieve pain?

Or do the doctors just guess?

I would hazard a guess that the Doctor has a range of dosages given a particular set of circumstances - with an upper and a lower limit of what is considered acceptable. My further guess would be that in the scenarios that others have described - the Doctor would prescribe a dosage consistently at the upper limit - but not exceeding (so they are protected from a malpractice hearing, but still helping the patient along)

This is however, pure conjecture.

Katman

9th June 2015, 10:25

I would hazard a guess that the Doctor has a range of dosages given a particular set of circumstances - with an upper and a lower limit of what is considered acceptable. My further guess would be that in the scenarios that others have described - the Doctor would prescribe a dosage consistently at the upper limit - but not exceeding (so they are protected from a malpractice hearing, but still helping the patient along)

This is however, pure conjecture.

Yes, but that's not strictly pain relief.

That's guesswork.

TheDemonLord

9th June 2015, 10:28

Yes, but that's not strictly pain relief.

That's guesswork.

Assuming my conjecture is valid - its not guesswork - its an educated opinion based on experience.

Reckless

9th June 2015, 10:35

The treatment regime for end-stage palliative care is designed to accelerate organ failure cascade while keeping the patient pain free. Just follow the process and you're covered.

I think this is very true seen it a couple of times with close family.
Case in point a close family member.
I stood at the end of his bed at his home with the family around and shared his last moments.
Given what I witnessed in those last days leading up to it. I'm convinced it was the morphine and drugs rather than the cancer that finally put him to rest.
And thank goodness for that! It was very serene and peaceful the way he drifted off. The family broke down as you would expect but as far as I know where always grateful for the peaceful way the doctors managed a youngish mans passing.

I for one wouldnt have wanted to last another minute if it was me that is for sure.

I think we already have Euthanasia by default in the last days but the question remains if the diagnosis is 2 years previous to your passing should you have the choice to go quickly rather then slowly and probably Painfully.

Not even factoring on the effect on the family In my case the answer would be a definite selfish yes.
You only have to read the Sig I've had here for the last 10 years. I don't want to live on like Micheal Schumacher might be?
When my quality of life drops to the point there's is little quality left please someone pull the pin! I'd rather rot.
Well managed euthanasia I'm in favor of.

Katman

9th June 2015, 10:45

Assuming my conjecture is valid - its not guesswork - its an educated opinion based on experience.

I'm struggling to imagine what experience doctors can have of judging an unconscious person's level of pain.

When a person is in a conscious state they can say "it still really hurts Doc".

How do unconscious people express their level of pain with any degree of clarity?

Maha

9th June 2015, 10:58

Thanks jonbouy for reviving this thread instead of letting it die naturally... see what I did there?

Katman

9th June 2015, 11:01

... see what I did there?

You managed to create a post without any spelling mistakes?

Well done you.

TheDemonLord

9th June 2015, 11:17

I'm struggling to imagine what experience doctors can have of judging an unconscious person's level of pain.

When a person is in a conscious state they can say "it still really hurts Doc".

How do unconscious people express their level of pain with any degree of clarity?

I would imagine they would base it off dealing with Conscious patients:

as a hypothetical (with figures pulled out my arse):

you have dealt with 20 patients with end-stage cancer, who were of a similar size and build -they needed between 20 mg and 40 mg of Morphine. With an unconscious patient - if my Conjecture is correct, you would administer a 40 or maybe a bit more (again, in your professional experiance as a Doctor you would know how much you could go over over the dosage and not be hauled in front of a Medical hearing) dosage to make sure they weren't in pain and to persuade the body to move on.

but again - all conjecture and hypothetical.

I would also put forward that if such a practice was happening that it would be a case of don't ask, don't tell and that we would be unlikely to get any written confirmation from a Doctor on it.

Katman

9th June 2015, 11:36

....and to persuade the body to move on.

See, that's the bit I'd like some more info from Jim on.

I wasn't aware that end stage palliative care involves 'persuading the body to move on'.

Big Dog

9th June 2015, 12:20

Taking the conjecture out for a moment. At least 2 adult males I know were given morphine pumps. Pumps that issue a minimum dose on a schedule and supply up to a maximum dose that is safe for the age, height, weight and gender of the patient on demand from a button the patient has taped to their hand. At least I assume they are all involved in the pumps calculations. I saw them input a couple of times as shifts changed, bags changed etc.

Then came the talk.
Followed by a doctor having a frank discussion with the patient about what the significance of turning off the metering. About how in an emergency the first step taken by staff would be to turn metering on.

All very humane and caring, but it left no doubt in our minds the staff would be in a power of shit if we talked out of church.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Ocean1

9th June 2015, 12:25

And let's not forget that while we're talking about increasing morphine dosages we're still talking about lingering death.

The effects of morphine vary a large degree with the level of pain, there's only one reason you'd typically give anyone a lot more than a "std" dose.

My wife nursed a guy who arrived with 70% burns, walked out of the ambulance, (no skin nerves). An hour later they had to give him morphine, and an hour later another 200mg. That's an insane amount, dangerous, but there was no way that was what was going to kill him. It never touched him.

RDJ

9th June 2015, 12:46

An appropriate knowledge of physiology & pharmacology and the application of robust protocols - and monitoring - for making sure the patient has "more than enough" analgesia circulating, sums up how to manage pain in the unconscious patient in the patient's best interests.

Bear in mind that every time someone is anaesthetised for elective or emergency surgery, they and we want them to be profoundly unconscious; but they're undergoing painful procedures (or in the case of trauma patients, already have a lot of pain on board) so it is not sufficient to only keep them sedated/anaesthetised; they need pain relief pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and post-operatively.

Managing pain in an unconscious patient regardless of the cause of the unconsciousness is not done by guesswork.

Katman

9th June 2015, 12:59

Bear in mind that every time someone is anaesthetised for elective or emergency surgery, they and we want them to be profoundly unconscious; but they're undergoing painful procedures (or in the case of trauma patients, already have a lot of pain on board) so it is not sufficient to only keep them sedated/anaesthetised; they need pain relief pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and post-operatively.

The difference being that when you operate on someone you don't want them to 'feel' anything.

Why should a person be forced to face their death 'feeling' nothing.

I think it's far more civilised to allow a person the right to die feeling (and being profoundly aware of) the love of others that may be sharing those last moments with them.

RDJ

9th June 2015, 13:04

The difference being that when you operate on someone you don't want them to 'feel' anything.

Why should a person be forced to face their death 'feeling' nothing.

I think it's far more civilised to allow a person the right to die feeling (and being profoundly aware of) the love of others that may be sharing those last moments with them.

My mistake to have answered the question that you had asked earlier which was -

I'm struggling to imagine what experience doctors can have of judging an unconscious person's level of pain.

When a person is in a conscious state they can say "it still really hurts Doc".

How do unconscious people express their level of pain with any degree of clarity?

Since you then immediately set up a straw man of "a person being forced to face the death feeling nothing,..." I regret re-engaging in this discussion.

Katman

9th June 2015, 13:19

Since you then immediately set up a straw man of "a person being forced to face the death feeling nothing,..." I regret re-engaging in this discussion.

So what would you describe a person being denied the right to choose to die while being aware of loved ones surrounding them as?

Because as a person slips further and further into an unresponsive state they are most certainly going to be facing death feeling nothing.

If they have been denied the right to choose the time of their death then they are most certainly being forced into that situation.

Ulsterkiwi

9th June 2015, 13:29

selective quoting
the man answered your question

Katman

9th June 2015, 13:41

selective quoting
the man answered your question

Well he didn't actually.

After a point, increasing the morphine dosage towards the end of a terminally ill person's life appears to be more about the doctor (or nurse) speeding the dying process along rather than pain relief. (Like I said, an unresponsive, unconscious person cannot tell you what level of pain they're feeling).

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but what I am saying is that if a terminally ill person prefers to die while being aware that they're surrounded by the company of loved ones, I believe it is wrong to deny them that right.

Katman

9th June 2015, 13:54

And if in fact it is common practice for doctors to hasten the final moments of a terminally ill person's life, why do they have more right to call time than the person that is doing the dying?

TheDemonLord

9th June 2015, 13:56

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but what I am saying is that if a terminally ill person prefers to die while being aware that they're surrounded by the company of loved ones, I believe it is wrong to deny them that right.

What you appear to have there - is one of the many legal minefield questions that need to have solutions before the law can be changed to allow Euthanasia.

Now, since I have been away from this thread (only chipping in with the occassional 2c) I should re-confirm my position - I believe in the principle of Euthanasia - but there are a lot of very difficult questions that need very VERY robust legal answers.

As I stated earlier - I am not sure that it is possible to legislate adequately on such an issue so that all possibilities are defined and accounted for.

Get it right - and we have a society where people who are faced with certain death, can die with dignity, at a time and place of their choosing, sorrounded by loved ones.
Get it wrong - and it goes badly wrong (with expensive law suits, wrongful death charges etc.)

Katman

9th June 2015, 14:05

Now, since I have been away from this thread (only chipping in with the occassional 2c) I should re-confirm my position - I believe in the principle of Euthanasia - but there are a lot of very difficult questions that need very VERY robust legal answers.

I don't think anyone has suggested it's as simple as "Well, we've just decided to kill everyone".

It's been stated many times in this thread that there are certain points that need very careful consideration before changing any law.

The basic principle that everyone should have the right to say 'enough's enough' when their time is almost up is not that hard to fathom though.

TheDemonLord

9th June 2015, 14:29

I don't think anyone has suggested it's as simple as "Well, we've just decided to kill everyone".

It's been stated many times in this thread that there are certain points that need very careful consideration before changing any law.

Certainly - my position is one that is skeptical that the certain points you mention can be adequately resolved so that a law change can happen.

Katman

9th June 2015, 14:31

Get it wrong - and it goes badly wrong (with expensive law suits, wrongful death charges etc.)

Well that begs the obvious question.....

In the places that have liberalised their euthanasia laws, has there been a sudden increase in expensive law suits and wrongful death charges?

And if there has been, surely we could then take a closer look at those instances in order to figure out how to avoid similar pitfalls.

James Deuce

9th June 2015, 15:00

In answer to your previous request for documentation, all the documentation talks about is appropriate pain relief. You're not going to find assisted death methods documented in NZ. But you will see the risks of withholding fluids and high dose opiates used in conjunction well documented and likely outcomes documented and when and where to use such treatment regimes.

In regards to your latest question, the biggest problem is family members executing intellectually disabled and dementia-ridden relatives. There are increases in The Netherlands that are an order of magnitude greater than the pre-liberalised assisted suicide regime. So single figures to two figures per year of euthansised patients who arguably are unable to make a conscious choice. That's the biggest sticking point for me. The second biggest point is impact on the individual's wider family. I don't believe that a person should be allowed to go through with it if the immediate family are in any way uncomfortable. Individualism sometimes descends into selfishness with little regard for social impact on the micro and macro scales.

Katman

9th June 2015, 15:02

In regards to your latest question, the biggest problem is family members executing intellectually disabled and dementia-ridden relatives.

Nobody is asking that anyone be given carte blanche to 'execute' anyone.

That would clearly be one of the issues that would need strict regulation.

Katman

9th June 2015, 15:05

I don't believe that a person should be allowed to go through with it if the immediate family are in any way uncomfortable.

Well that's another thing we disagree on then.

If the person's family were against the idea of an assisted death then it would be up to the patient to try to make the family understand his/her wishes.

If the family are still adamant that they don't support the idea then the patient can either change their own mind or tell their family "sorry, but my mind is made up".

The rights of the family should not, by default, outweigh the right of the individual.

PrincessBandit

10th June 2015, 11:31

The rights of the family should not, by default, outweigh the right of the individual.

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

Katman

10th June 2015, 11:46

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

I'm talking specifically about a terminally ill person choosing to terminate their life.

If I'm ever in that position and I choose that path then it's tough shit if family don't like it.

I have no problem with the concept of 'whanau-community-society' when it comes to living one's life.

But if a terminally ill person is given the opportunity to choose the manner in which they depart life then it is no-one else's business what choice they ultimately make.