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.
Oh, bother. No, I do not object to putting down sick animals. But, 1) animals do not have the capacity for full self-determination and, 2) we're not talking "lower" animals here but human beings. Big difference as far as I'm concerned and your raising of the animal issue has no real relevance. Was your purpose in asking the original question to find answers or to argue them?
As for the moral grounds, those are mine and do not require explanation or justification. I will say that I do not object to ceasing treatment which could permit someone to "slip away." In those cases I'm a firm believer in palliative care and nothing more. But I find an overt act to kill objectionable.
Oh, bother. No, I do not object to putting down sick animals. But, 1) animals do not have the capacity for full self-determination and, 2) we're not talking "lower" animals here but human beings. Big difference as far as I'm concerned and your raising of the animal issue has no real relevance. Was your purpose in asking the original question to find answers or to argue them?
As for the moral grounds, those are mine and do not require explanation or justification. I will say that I do not object to ceasing treatment which could permit someone to "slip away." In those cases I'm a firm believer in palliative care and nothing more. But I find an overt act to kill objectionable.
My purpose in asking the question was to gauge percentages of seniors who feel one way or the other and to understand more about the beliefs involved.
I asked the question about morality, because I was not clear what the issue might be separate from religion.
I disagree with you about animals but personal beliefs are bound to differ on that subject (due to religious ideas that I am aware of).
This is not personal and there is no reason to make it so.
My purpose in asking the question was to gauge percentages of seniors who feel one way or the other and to understand more about the beliefs involved.
I asked the question about morality, because I was not clear what the issue might be separate from religion.
I disagree with you about animals but personal beliefs are bound to differ on that subject (due to religious ideas that I am aware of).
This is not personal and there is no reason to make it so.
I don't take it or regard it personally. However, you do raise the good point as to any connection with or separation between the religious and moral. To me, religious is a matter of faith and, in many if not most cases, doctrine. And that does affect me. The moral is my independent compass totally separate from my religious beliefs, adherence and observations. However, in this case they do happen to coincide. They don't always.
Even with legal physician-assisted suicide, you have to be able to take the pill yourself with no assistance and I believe it has to be video'd. The physician would be on hand to make sure you are not botching it, causing yourself related pain, or endangering others. They don't kill you. You do it yourself after signing lots of papers.
One reason I moved to WA is that it is legal here. You have to have two doctors agree you have fewer than 6 months to live, which can be impossible to predict, so it's not "perfect," but the point is that the patient has to ask, and two doctors have to agree. Therefore, abuse is difficult because no one person can make the decision themselves.
I watched a relative suffer with intractable pain from bone cancer, and no amount of morphine helped ease it. There is no reason a human being should be forced to go through that when we wouldn't allow it to happen to our pets.
"killing someone"
The way I see it, giving the permission to 'pull the plug' is much closer to 'killing someone' than assisting them by providing the means with which they can do it themselves.....the reason it's called suicide.
"killing someone"
The way I see it, giving the permission to 'pull the plug' is much closer to 'killing someone' than assisting them by providing the means with which they can do it themselves.....the reason it's called suicide.
The end result is the same and both are "assisted."
If you want to do yourself in go ahead however, do not involve others in your quest.
It would be nice if people respected other people's points-of-views - maybe you could preface that by saying, "My opinion is . . ." instead of making such a blanket statement of what others "should or shouldn't" do.
Three, now four states "agree" that you can have assistance in the form of obtaining the fatal dosage. I believe voters in all states would have had to have voted that into law in their respective states.
Why would you care about "patient privilege?" (Whatever is between a patient and THEIR doctor?) It wouldn't impact you or your decision regarding yourself.
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.
