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.
He had been hospitalized for a month with pneumonia and kidney problems. The nurses were playing Bach for him at the end. They likely knew it was coming close...he must have known. I call him a coward for hanging on when he ushered people out in the name of mercy.
It was their
CHOICE!
That's what it was all about! Having a choice!
AND:
"Hanging on" ???
It was a only month! YOU have no idea of what "hanging on" is....
There are people who "hang on" for months and years!!! All for what????
I truly hope someone takes up his cause. Luckily, people are opening their eyes and seeing that it's downright cruel to force terminally ill people to languish in a sort of half life that can only be properly supported by machines and millions of dollars in useless drugs.............
No one forces terminally ill people to languish. This is the purpose of advanced directives. If people do not make their wishes known in writing they have no one but themselves to blame.
If a person wishes to commit suicide it is up to them to do it. It is not up to a physician to facilitate their death. IMO, that is indeed premeditated murder and against the oath to "do no harm". If the laws change to allow the person with medical power of attorney to take such action that is one thing but IMO, physicians are to heal, not to kill, [MOD CUT]
Obviously, YMMV.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-03-2011 at 09:30 AM..
Reason: off topic
No one forces terminally ill people to languish. This is the purpose of advanced directives. If people do not make their wishes known in writing they have no one but themselves to blame.
If a person wishes to commit suicide it is up to them to do it. It is not up to a physician to facilitate their death. IMO, that is indeed premeditated murder and against the oath to "do no harm". If the laws change to allow the person with medical power of attorney to take such action that is one thing but IMO, physicians are to heal, not to kill, that includes abortion on a healthy woman carrying a healthy fetus.
Obviously, YMMV.
""against the oath to "do no harm".
What harm is there in ending a person's suffering?
[MOD CUT]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-03-2011 at 09:31 AM..
Reason: response to deleted content
No one forces terminally ill people to languish. This is the purpose of advanced directives. If people do not make their wishes known in writing they have no one but themselves to blame.
If a person wishes to commit suicide it is up to them to do it. It is not up to a physician to facilitate their death. IMO, that is indeed premeditated murder and against the oath to "do no harm". If the laws change to allow the person with medical power of attorney to take such action that is one thing but IMO, physicians are to heal, not to kill, [MOD CUT]
Obviously, YMMV.
The people who chose to die by assisted suicide were not unconscious. They were aware of their pain. These people were not forced to die. The contraption made by Kevorkian made the exit from life easy, much easier (and less messy) than using a gun.
What's the point in suffering if one knows that only death awaits?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-03-2011 at 09:32 AM..
Reason: edited quoted post
A study in the Netherlands found that one in four doctors said they had killed patients without an explicit request--including one doctor who believed that a dying Dutch nun was prevented from requesting euthanasia because of her religion, so he felt the just and merciful thing to do was to decide for her.
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.