People in Belgium killing themselves more than ever

[BlueStarLizzard]

Thanks to advances in modern medicine, the average human can preserve life well past the age our bodies are naturally designed to disinigrate.

Dehibilitating deases is often still dehibilitaing but no longer immediatly deadly.

Much of modern society gets caught up in the fight for longevity and forgets that quality of life matters.

My family medical history indicates that I'm likely to spend the last decade or so of my life in a state of dementia, as a burden on my family, with little too no understanding of what's going on around me and distressed by things I would/should understand.
So basically, I have a shot of hitting the century mark, but I won't really know it, and I'll spend most of those last few years confused, upset and as a burden to those who I love and who love me.

No *expletive deleted*ing way. If it's up to me, the point at which quanity of life is outweighed by lack of quality of life, I want to end it. I don't see how anyone else has the right to tell me I can't.

[Perd Hapley]

Please explain in what way the body is "designed to disintegrate" at a certain age, and how we are to know what that age might be.

[French G.]

My maternal grandfather went over 6 months at the last of his life without eating, too blocked by esophageal cancer while dying of that and bone cancer. So, if I'm in the same boat should I oppose legalized medical assisted suicide or should I embrace the moral victory of hanging on for nothing while doctors ration out pain medication to keep tweakers from getting pills? Or maybe shoot myself and leave a mess for the family. He was mentally competent to the end.

The ethical questions come in with people like my paternal grandfather. He was so far gone for a decade he didn't know who his wife was, made new friends everyday. In fact, the only time in his life he was pleasant to be around. He had zero capacity to decide such a question, absent an ironclad living will I don't think anyone else should decide either.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

My maternal grandfather went over 6 months at the last of his life without eating, too blocked by esophageal cancer while dying of that and bone cancer. So, if I'm in the same boat should I oppose legalized medical assisted suicide or should I embrace the moral victory of hanging on for nothing while doctors ration out pain medication to keep tweakers from getting pills? Or maybe shoot myself and leave a mess for the family. He was mentally competent to the end.

The ethical questions come in with people like my grandfather. He was so far gone for a decade he didn't know who his wife was, made new friends everyday. In fact, the only time in his life he was pleasant to be around. He had zero capacity to decide such a question, absent an ironclad living will I don't think anyone else should decide either.

this is one of those complex moral issues  so complex that rather than being a gray area i say it has stripes
on the flip side of the obvious concerns you described so well we need to balance against folks who wanna off dad/grampa for quicker access to his money. its sad and it happens

[RoadKingLarry]

I think for some folks the objection to assisted suicide/euthanasia are the short steps from allowed to encouraged to required by law.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I think for some folks the objection to assisted suicide/euthanasia are the short steps from allowed to encouraged to required by law.

That too


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Balog]

I think for some folks the objection to assisted suicide/euthanasia are the short steps from allowed to encouraged to required by law.

You're obviously just a raving religious fanatic statist who wants to force your morality down people's throats.

[RevDisk]

You're obviously just a raving religious fanatic statist who wants to force your morality down people's throats.

The folks that want to outlaw euthanasia are already at the end of their slippery slope. It ain't right to let someone die screaming, while withholding pain meds because we can't allow terminal folks to become addicts, now can we?

As I said, screw anyone that believes they have a right to decide how I die. I have good enough friends that would arrange a "suicide" if necessary, and I'd do the same for them. Folks are entitled to their opinion. Mine is that one does the honorable thing, especially when it's terminal.

[Balog]

I was addressing the posts saying that any possible objection to euthanasia is just evil evil religious folks being all evil and statist.


Also, let's think through the "if my quality of life is low it should be legally and socially acceptable to end it."

Since it's about other people killing you (not you killing yourself) that means that you are unable to do it yourself. You seem to posit a physical inability with either a clear mental state or extremely clear living will.

What about people who are mentally incompetent? When my father has completely succumbed to Alzheimer's, should it be legal for me to have him killed because in my opinion his quality of life is too low? If I have a child with Down's syndrome, or one with significant physical or mental deformities, should it be legal for me to have them put to death because I judge their quality of life to be too low? If my spouse is in an accident and becomes quadriplegic do I get to decide their quality of life is too low and have them put to death?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I was addressing the posts saying that any possible objection to euthanasia is just evil evil religious folks being all evil and statist.


Also, let's think through the "if my quality of life is low it should be legally and socially acceptable to end it."

Since it's about other people killing you (not you killing yourself) that means that you are unable to do it yourself. You seem to posit a physical inability with either a clear mental state or extremely clear living will.

What about people who are mentally incompetent? When my father has completely succumbed to Alzheimer's, should it be legal for me to have him killed because in my opinion his quality of life is too low? If I have a child with Down's syndrome, or one with significant physical or mental deformities, should it be legal for me to have them put to death because I judge their quality of life to be too low? If my spouse is in an accident and becomes quadriplegic do I get to decide their quality of life is too low and have them put to death?

Bingo


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[BlueStarLizzard]

Ummm...

Balog, CSD, where has any of the pro euthinasia folks made a comment about making the decision for someone else?

Seriously, you guys are really working an angle that no one is talking about.

If someone makes a judgement call and arranges for there own death, either immediatly or through an intermedary like a very specific living will or by granting the power to someone they trust via power of attorny type arrangement, who the hell are you to say "No"?

It's not your call. It's their call. That's the whole point. This isn't about making a decision for ANYONE else. It's about making your own, informed decision and having the means and resources to follow through.

[RevDisk]

I was addressing the posts saying that any possible objection to euthanasia is just evil evil religious folks being all evil and statist.


Also, let's think through the "if my quality of life is low it should be legally and socially acceptable to end it."

Since it's about other people killing you (not you killing yourself) that means that you are unable to do it yourself. You seem to posit a physical inability with either a clear mental state or extremely clear living will.

What about people who are mentally incompetent? When my father has completely succumbed to Alzheimer's, should it be legal for me to have him killed because in my opinion his quality of life is too low? If I have a child with Down's syndrome, or one with significant physical or mental deformities, should it be legal for me to have them put to death because I judge their quality of life to be too low? If my spouse is in an accident and becomes quadriplegic do I get to decide their quality of life is too low and have them put to death?

Valid points.

But what about folks who are responsible and map out their wishes very clearly in the appropriate legal documentation? We're not legally allowed that option.

[Balog]

Rev: I'm not per se opposed to all cases of assisted suicide. But I recognize that clear cut cases with no chance for problems creeping in are a minority of edge cases, and should be dealt with as such. Kind of like how people use the what, %3 of abortions that come about after rape or incest and use it to justify the tens of millions who use it as a form of birth control. You want to debate specific edge cases and narrow exemptions for them, that's one thing. But 1. that's never what really happens when the laws are implemented 2. there is still the societal issue of it being expected and social pressure applied. It's sort of in the same realm as what I understand your view on the death penalty is. Not necessarily bad per se, but so prone to abuse that it should be rare or non-existant.

BSL: we're thinking through the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of a law.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Rev: I'm not per se opposed to all cases of assisted suicide. But I recognize that clear cut cases with no chance for problems creeping in are a minority of edge cases, and should be dealt with as such. Kind of like how people use the what, %3 of abortions that come about after rape or incest and use it to justify the tens of millions who use it as a form of birth control. You want to debate specific edge cases and narrow exemptions for them, that's one thing. But 1. that's never what really happens when the laws are implemented 2. there is still the societal issue of it being expected and social pressure applied. It's sort of in the same realm as what I understand your view on the death penalty is. Not necessarily bad per se, but so prone to abuse that it should be rare or non-existant.

BSL: we're thinking through the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of a law.

You're also talking to someone who belives the primary purpose of abortion is last minute birth control.

This is a moral point at which you have to make a choice between what is an acceptable amount of abuse and what is a fundemental right of an induvidial.
I think the right of an induvidual to choose the nature and time of there own death trumps the unavoidable abuses of the proposed law.
I also think that it's not that hard to impliment safeguards to minimize any potential abuse in this case.
Though to be honest, I would anticipate the abuse be on the part of overzelous healthcare workers preserving life when the induvidial has made clear the wish to end life.

[roo_ster]

Don't worry though, in spite of my bitterly clinging to my Bible I'm still fully supportive of allowing rank bigotry like this to remain legal.

I would insist on it.  Would that others were so tolerant of criticism regarding their own particular soft spot.  (Hey, how many bans or time-outs have been handed out for nasty anti-Christian remarks here at APS?  Bueller...)

What about people who are mentally incompetent? When my father has completely succumbed to Alzheimer's, should it be legal for me to have him killed because in my opinion his quality of life is too low? If I have a child with Down's syndrome, or one with significant physical or mental deformities, should it be legal for me to have them put to death because I judge their quality of life to be too low? If my spouse is in an accident and becomes quadriplegic do I get to decide their quality of life is too low and have them put to death?

At first, it might be all about choice and making one particular choice legal, but not for long and not with Obamacare.  Soon it would be socially unacceptable to keep demento-gramps/the mongoloid/the quad around.  Not too long after that, expect the force of law to be applied to recalcitrant life-clingers with Death Quality of Life Panels.

We have seen the pattern work itself out.  Homosexuality has run the gamut from being illegal to tolerated to where it is illegal to not help them celebrate their play-acting.

On the downs syndrome side, it is not yet illegal to birth such a child, but it surely has become socially unacceptable in large swaths of the coasts and NYT-reading groups.

With Obamacare and OPM in the mix, you can be damn sure it won't be long until euthanasia is mandatory.  Or the Death Quality of Life Panels just decide cheap & simple things no longer make sense from a cost/QoL(1) perspective.  After all, when QoL in the equation is zero, any dollar amount spent is exorbitant.

But what about folks who are responsible and map out their wishes very clearly in the appropriate legal documentation? We're not legally allowed that option.

Ah, you have fallen for the "Million Dollar Baby" lie.

If you are able to make such decisions, you can refuse any and all medical treatment.  You can also so state in a medical directive/living will what measures can be taken and then no more.  The only hitch comes when you have not briefed your family and your family is a bunch of damnfool emotional incontinents.  Despite such documents, if you have wailing and rending of garments such as "Puh-LEASE! save my  BAYBEE!  Do Evruthang to bring them BACK!" and the like, lotsa docs will run the legal risks in their head and keep your carcass stuffed full of tubes.  "Patient's suffering vs lawsuit risk...hmmm.  Nurse, send for silicone tubing by the pallet-load!  I intend to catheterize the patient's catheters."

[This is but one area where choosing your spouse is very important.  Carrying out your wishes to keep you around or let you pass when you can not so indicate.  And being able to stand up to the loud fools in your family.]

You're also talking to someone who belives the primary purpose of abortion is last minute birth control.

This is a moral point at which you have to make a choice between what is an acceptable amount of abuse and what is a fundemental right of an induvidial.
I think the right of an induvidual to choose the nature and time of there own death trumps the unavoidable abuses of the proposed law.
I also think that it's not that hard to impliment safeguards to minimize any potential abuse in this case.
Though to be honest, I would anticipate the abuse be on the part of overzelous healthcare workers preserving life when the induvidial has made clear the wish to end life.

You would be wrong.  Approximately 0% of the docs & nurses I know would do so.  About the only time that gets trumped is in the shadow of legal threat.   

Also, were such a law to be passed, you are now talking real money and real losses for powerful people.  Plus, a lot of that is "gov't" money.  Want to see how gov't plays when its money is on the line in a simple in/out situation?  Look at the IRS.  They have an entire kangaroo court system designed to circumvent the usual Constitutional safeguards.  Hey, which gov't agency is playing the enforcer for Obamacare? 




(1) Already the standard for most such schemes.  There is a max number of dollars per year of good health centralized systems will spend.  A 45YO projected to live to age 75 needs a $30,000 operation?  $30,000/30yrs = $1,000/year.  Give them the operation.  A 90YO expected (according to the insurance tables) to live one more year?  $30,000/1yr = $30,000/year.  Sorry, gramps.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Funny. I knew a good woman dying a horrid death who had a signed DNR, had a very clear living will and wanted to die at home with her loved ones in attendance.

Those same loved ones had to practically wrestle the hospice nurse down a few times when the woman blantently attempted to violate those legally documented wishes.
They also had to go to court to have a judge uphold the damn documents and tell several of those same hospice workers to GTFO.

And these are freeking HOSPICE medical staff. Seriously.



I love that you turn a human rights arguement into "OMG!! The GOVERNMENT is gonna KILL US ALL!!" and spend all your time bringing up those nasty homos and baby killers.

I know several people who would pull the plug on a loved one, and my mother already knows when it's acceptable to pull the plug on me, and, should it be nessasry she would in a heartbeat.

[Balog]

Oh, you knew someone once who did something? Well, I've seen all the proof I need here!

Also, I love how learning from the past is a-ok when it comes to .gov infringement vs firearm rights, but not in other areas.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Oh, you knew someone once who did something? Well, I've seen all the proof I need here!

Well, rooster knows all the doctors and nurses who def, def, definatly wouldn't do such a thing.

[Balog]

So close. You have an example of something that happened once. He knows many folks in industry X, and can state that out of this larger sample size the rate of "willing to do Y" is nil. Neither is exactly ironclad proof, but one is more valid than the other. Nice try though.

Also, I'd love if you could expound more on what the human body is designed to do, and how that lines up with your atheist religion.

[BlueStarLizzard]

So close. You have an example of something that happened once. He knows many folks in industry X, and can state that out of this larger sample size the rate of "willing to do Y" is nil. Neither is exactly ironclad proof, but one is more valid than the other. Nice try though.

Also, I'd love if you could expound more on what the human body is designed to do, and how that lines up with your atheist religion.

Well, we can't all belive in happy little fairy tales of zombies and flapping around to harp music.

I'm so sorry that you find such disatisfaction that your god made you mortal, and I apolgies that I have no intrest in participating in his grand plan by suffering some painful death when I could cheat and kill myself first.

You don't want your religion insulted, then don't start it.

[Jamisjockey]

So close. You have an example of something that happened once. He knows many folks in industry X, and can state that out of this larger sample size the rate of "willing to do Y" is nil. Neither is exactly ironclad proof, but one is more valid than the other. Nice try though.

Also, I'd love if you could expound more on what the human body is designed to do, and how that lines up with your atheist religion.

You say designed. I say evolved. 

[roo_ster]

Funny. I knew a good woman dying a horrid death who had a signed DNR, had a very clear living will and wanted to die at home with her loved ones in attendance.

Those same loved ones had to practically wrestle the hospice nurse down a few times when the woman blantently attempted to violate those legally documented wishes.
They also had to go to court to have a judge uphold the damn documents and tell several of those same hospice workers to GTFO.

And these are freeking HOSPICE medical staff. Seriously.



I love that you turn a human rights arguement into "OMG!! The GOVERNMENT is gonna KILL US ALL!!" and spend all your time bringing up those nasty homos and baby killers.

I know several people who would pull the plug on a loved one, and my mother already knows when it's acceptable to pull the plug on me, and, should it be nessasry she would in a heartbeat.

Code: [Select]

$ wc -w post_less_quotes.txt  post_only_nasty_homo_baby_killers.txt
 548 post_less_quotes.txt
  61 post_only_nasty_homo_baby_killers.txt
 609 total
~11% of the post, BSL, spent on but two real-world examples that contradict your argument.

BSL, if you don't think gov't is not going to push to "economize" once this sort of thing is legalized and when Obamacare is fully implemented, you got another think coming.  And the example of nearly every other such health care system ever implemented to argue with.  Money is the life's blood of gov't and gov't is amoral when it comes to how it gets it.  Get between gov't and money it wants and expect to be shot in the face if you are persistent enough.  Or have your plug pulled before you'd rather check out.

Were gov't not hip-deep in healthcare funding and getting deeper every day, I would back legalizing assisted suicide the next day.  For the suffering lucid folk, that is a relatively easy call.  For the not-lucid, it gets tricky quick, but ought to be an option.

Folks make a big deal about the gov't having too much power WRT the death penalty, which is applied in relatively few cases.  In the case of end of life care, it will be tens of thousands (or more) opportunities to for gov't to screw it up and gov't will be incentivized to pull the plug early.

So close. You have an example of something that happened once. He knows many folks in industry X, and can state that out of this larger sample size the rate of "willing to do Y" is nil. Neither is exactly ironclad proof, but one is more valid than the other. Nice try though.

I am not claiming statistically valid sample sizes.  I bet there are some surveys out there that would shed light on doc & nurse attitudes on this.  But, what I wrote has been my experience.  None of them wanted to linger on in agony, helplessness, or a brain-dead sack of meat.

You say designed. I say evolved. 

No, BSL said "designed."  Balog is referring to

Thanks to advances in modern medicine, the average human can preserve life well past the age our bodies are naturally designed to disinigrate.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Evolution is a type of design.

Or not. Or whatever.

Maybe it's all that influance from working for a dog breeder. It does make one feel rather godlike at times. So sorry my choice of words got ya'lls panties in a twist.
Or not.

[mtnbkr]

(Hey, how many bans or time-outs have been handed out for nasty anti-Christian remarks here at APS?  Bueller...)

Not that I need to justify our actions to you, but there was one person that was well on his way to being banned, had he not left on his own accord, for nasty anti-Christian remarks well in excess of anything you see in this thread.

That said, we have NOT taken action (planned or executed) against those whose "pro-Christian" remarks border on the personal and offensive either.  Take that as you may...

Chris

[Balog]

Not that I need to justify our actions to you, but there was one person that was well on his way to being banned, had he not left on his own accord, for nasty anti-Christian remarks well in excess of anything you see in this thread.

That said, we have NOT taken action (planned or executed) against those whose "pro-Christian" remarks border on the personal and offensive either.  Take that as you may...

Chris

That was Werewolf, right? Hmmm, did a search and yep that was him. Also, it reminded me of this classic from a different board about WH40K.

I wake up in the morning. I praise the emperor and retrieve His most holy of toasts. Purge a few tainted souls. Go to work. Eradicate the heretics. get home. Praise the Emperor for another blessed day, and procede to invoke the omnissiah's blessing in order to watch some TV. just like everyone else

BSL: you're just saying things that have no relation to any arguments being posited here. I get that you're angry and enjoy feelling superior and all, but this is just embarrassing for you.