Euthanasia

[husaberg]

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?



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/sh...ternative-fuel

[Katman]

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/sh...ternative-fuel

You're obsessed, aren't you?

[Katman]

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]

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/sh...ternative-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'.

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]

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).

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

[Crasherfromwayback]

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

I reckon. See post # 95

[FJRider]

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).

Most Doctors are shy about killing their patients ... but keeping their patients totally zopped out is acceptable ... apparently ...

[Gremlin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Those stats are useless without the corresponding stats for suicide (illegal, unassisted).

[husaberg]

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]

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]

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