Euthanasia

[Big Dog]

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]

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/sh...ternative-fuel

[husaberg]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Katman]

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]

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]

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?

Someone's still not thinking it through thoroughly again.
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.
Do medical professionals have that same choice who they care for idiots wankers or sick people.

[Katman]

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]

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]

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]

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/p...DLM304475.html

[RDJ]

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]

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.

Perhaps you should stick to being a doctor.