Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why don't they use the same pill the doctor gives you to execute death row murders?
Honest officer She just decided to kill herself. Nope, she was real healthy and seemed to have a bright future. No, I didn't kill her.
The government refrain is to save people from themselves, no sugar, seat belts, no firecrackers, no dodge ball, no pictures of guns in the classroom, more labels on ladders and mattresses to prevent injury and death...and then they tell you, you can kill yourself if you want. Well, maybe just youself and a close family member.
Talk about getting the death sentence and being innocent....lawyers are salivating for the case when a doctor tells a patient he has 6 months to live and it was found to be a medical error.
Honest officer She just decided to kill herself. Nope, she was real healthy and seemed to have a bright future. No, I didn't kill her.
The government refrain is to save people from themselves, no sugar, seat belts, no firecrackers, no dodge ball, no pictures of guns in the classroom, more labels on ladders and mattresses to prevent injury and death...and then they tell you, you can kill yourself if you want. Well, maybe just youself and a close family member.
Talk about getting the death sentence and being innocent....lawyers are salivating for the case when a doctor tells a patient he has 6 months to live and it was found to be a medical error.
You clearly haven't the vaguest how physician-assisted suicide laws work.
Edited to add - the first such law, in Oregon, was passed by a citizen's initiative and reaffirmed by referendum. IOW, it originated within the citizenry, not from any government agency nor the legislature.
Honest officer She just decided to kill herself. Nope, she was real healthy and seemed to have a bright future. No, I didn't kill her.
The government refrain is to save people from themselves, no sugar, seat belts, no firecrackers, no dodge ball, no pictures of guns in the classroom, more labels on ladders and mattresses to prevent injury and death...and then they tell you, you can kill yourself if you want. Well, maybe just youself and a close family member.
Talk about getting the death sentence and being innocent....lawyers are salivating for the case when a doctor tells a patient he has 6 months to live and it was found to be a medical error.
Unlike suicides, a person who receives a terminal diagnosis usually wants to live, so they aren't going to "take a pill" until their suffering becomes unbearable.......something that is unlikely to happen unless the diagnosis is correct.
Unlike suicides, a person who receives a terminal diagnosis usually wants to live, so they aren't going to "take a pill" until their suffering becomes unbearable.......something that is unlikely to happen unless the diagnosis is correct.
Have you ever had a close relative that was pronounced brain dead and was already on feeding tubes? Have you ever waited days from the time that the doctors pulled the tubes until your relative died? We do not treat our dogs that poorly. If we did it would make national news and they would throw us in jail and loose the key! But that is what is legal without legalized euthanasia. My father died that way and I had an aunt that died that way! It means days of being at their bedside and not knowing if their next breath will be their last.
If the patient is so bad off that they do not have brain activity; it is time to let go and let go quickly and painlessly. Of course that is with prior consent from the individual when they were of sound mind. All of us should have that 'right'.
Have you ever had a close relative that was pronounced brain dead and was already on feeding tubes? Have you ever waited days from the time that the doctors pulled the tubes until your relative died? We do not treat our dogs that poorly. If we did it would make national news and they would throw us in jail and loose the key! But that is what is legal without legalized euthanasia. My father died that way and I had an aunt that died that way! It means days of being at their bedside and not knowing if their next breath will be their last.
If the patient is so bad off that they do not have brain activity; it is time to let go and let go quickly and painlessly. Of course that is with prior consent from the individual when they were of sound mind. All of us should have that 'right'.
I totally agree.
If we treated our pets at the end of their lives like we treat people, we would be told we are being cruel.
We turned down extraordinary care when both my mother and father died. In both cases, we could have kept them alive and suffering for months if we chose to.
If we treated our pets at the end of their lives like we treat people, we would be told we are being cruel.
We turned down extraordinary care when both my mother and father died. In both cases, we could have kept them alive and suffering for months if we chose to.
If you love them, you will let them go.
Nobody really thinks about what we do to our elderly. First they go to the hospital and then, when the end is near, we send them to the hospice to die. But the hospice simply keeps them 'comfortable' with meds, soothing music, and meets their religious needs. Maybe I'm wrong; but I don't think people walk out of the hospice?
When patients can no longer feed themselves our doctors can order feeding tubes or not (depending on the patient's wishes when they were of 'sound' mind). However, the net effect is that we starve our elderly to death. Either they start that process when we don't install the tubes or when the doctors decide to pull the tubes.
You have to be mentally unstable or a religious 'nut' case to want to die this way. While starvation is 'natural'; death is also natural. Like I said before: we treat our pets better. We worry about our pets and we worry about our criminals on death row - we do not worry about our own 'end'.
California is not Oregon. I have no problem if a sick person wants to die but I don't trust California's government to just let it be without getting their dirty little finger in it. I don't know what I'm talking about but you are posting about Oregon LOL. Good luck with that.
California is not Oregon. I have no problem if a sick person wants to die but I don't trust California's government to just let it be without getting their dirty little finger in it. I don't know what I'm talking about but you are posting about Oregon LOL. Good luck with that.
OK, so tell me. Exactly what do you mean by fearing that the gov will be "getting their dirty little finger in it"?
The request for the medication originates with the person. The person then must find two doctors who will verify that they have 6 months or less to live. The person must then buy the prescription. Once the prescription s obtained, the person must then decide to take it. The person must then take it her/him self - no one else is allowed to administer it.
Where in all this does the gov interfere????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
