IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I don't see the connection....
In the Wendland case, discussed [link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/|here], the California Supreme Court ruled that his feeding tube couldn't be removed. Since he hadn't left written information about his wishes, and since there were disagreements among his family about his wishes, I think the ruling was correct. I don't see a "pressure to suicide" argument here. I take the wife at her word that he did say that he didn't want to live as a vegetable.

I don't see any problems with the Hemlock Society's [link|http://www.hemlock.org/changing_laws.htm|model laws] for physician assisted suicide, nor the Oregon law.

Elizabeth Bouvia didn't take advantage of her legal victory to end her life.

Off the cited page, "Not Dead Yet" says, [link|http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/ndyresistance.html|here]:

People already have the right to refuse unwanted treatment, and suicide is not illegal. What we oppose is a public policy that singles out individuals for legalized killing based on their health status. This violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, denies us the equal protection of the law, and health professionals decide who is "eligible." In these days of cost cutting and managed care, we don't trust the health care system, and neither should you. Moreover, assisted suicide proponents have a broader agenda that includes
non-voluntary euthanasia.


I'd like to see some evidence for these assertions. I don't see assisted suicide legislation that way at all.

In short, I don't see any evidence presented for a "pressure to suicide" and "death culture" which you seem to be concerned about.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks. Saved trouble - I go with your rebuttal too.
New You're missing the point by a mile
Pressure to suicide and pressure to terminate life support have been going since before there was any legislation for it. The legislation just makes it easier to dodge scrutiny. It gives the doctors and ethics boards more excuses to hide behind.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New How the slippery slope works
[link|http://www.iaetf.org/orr299.htm|Cutting through the doublespeak]

Excerpt:

Fifteen people in Oregon, we are told, legally committed suicide with the assistance of their doctors in l998. According to the report, not one of them was forced into the act by intractable pain or suffering. Rather, those who died had strong personal beliefs in individual autonomy, and chose suicide based primarily on fears of future dependence.

That isn't how assisted suicide was supposed to work. For many years, we have been told repeatedly by advocates that assisted suicide is to be a "last resort," applied only when nothing else can be done to alleviate "unrelenting and intolerable suffering."

Yet pain wasn't a factor in a single one of the Oregon suicides. Thus, rather than being a limited procedure performed out of extreme medical urgency, legalization in Oregon has actually widened the category of conditions for which physician-hastened death is seen as legitimate.


Another excerpt:

The first woman to commit assisted suicide in Oregon had a 2 1/2 week relationship with the doctor who wrote her lethal prescription. Her own doctor had refused to assist her suicide, as had a second doctor who diagnosed her with depression. So she went to an advocacy group, which referred her to a doctor willing to do the deed.

Hers was not a unique case. The report states that six of the 15 people sought lethal prescriptions from two or more doctors.

Assisted suicide proponents told us this wouldn't happen either. They promised that assisted suicide would only occur after a deep exploration of values between patients and doctors who had long-term relationships.

Thanks to the study, we now know that death decisions are being made by doctors the patients barely know. This isn't careful medical practice; it is rampant Kevorkianism.

The study is as notable for what it omits as for what it includes. Information about the people who committed assisted suicide came from death-prescribing doctors. Treating doctors who did not participate in their patients' deaths -- professionals who could have provided invaluable information about the health of the people who died -- were not interviewed. Nor were the doctors who refused to write lethal prescriptions. Family members were not contacted either.


I say:

The slippery slope is lubricated by selective information and short memories.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New OK, let's talk about a slippery slope
Excerpt:

Fifteen people in Oregon, we are told, legally committed suicide with the assistance of their doctors in l998. According to the report, not one of them was forced into the act by intractable pain or suffering. Rather, those who died had strong personal beliefs in individual autonomy, and chose suicide based primarily on fears of future dependence.

That isn't how assisted suicide was supposed to work. For many years, we have been told repeatedly by advocates that assisted suicide is to be a "last resort," applied only when nothing else can be done to alleviate "unrelenting and intolerable suffering."

Yet pain wasn't a factor in a single one of the Oregon suicides. Thus, rather than being a limited procedure performed out of extreme medical urgency, legalization in Oregon has actually widened the category of conditions for which physician-hastened death is seen as legitimate.


If I may:

Well over fifteen women nationwide (don't have exact figures; I'm sure that the numbers are orders of magnitude greater), we are told, legally had voluntary mastectomies preformed with the assistance of their doctors in l998. According to the report, not one of them was forced into the act by a diagnosis of breast cancer. Rather, those who submitted to the procedures had strong personal beliefs in individual autonomy, and chose the procedure based primarily on fears of future cancer.

That isn't how mastectomy was supposed to work. For many years, we have been told repeatedly by advocates that a mastectomy is to be a "last resort," applied only when nothing else can be done to alleviate "unrelenting and intolerable breast cancer."

Yet cancer wasn't a factor in a single one of the voluntary mastectomies. Thus, rather than being a limited procedure performed out of extreme medical urgency, the medical profession has actually widened the category of conditions for which voluntary mastectomy is seen as legitimate.


Hmmmm...
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New Er....
you don't seriously mean to suggest a moral equivalence here, do you?

Or are you one of those people who see a woman as nothing more than a pair of tits? No wait. Then you could only sanction assisted suicide when done to females.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New I think you know better.
He's talking about the form of the argument.

The anti-assisted-suicide argument is a poor one as presented. And the site you linked originally doesn't seem to (, to me anyway, ) support your contention that there's a "death culture and pressure to suicide".

Cheers,
Scott.
New Argument? What argument?
I didn't present any argument. I pointed to the existence of the slippery slope. Look, there it is.

You're acting like a small child who won't admit the milk has been spilled. "Look at all the spilled milk on the floor!" I say. "That's a weak argument" you say.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New You're pointing to invisible pink unicorns.
For someone who prides himself on looking at evidence and probabilities and shades of gray, you don't seem to be doing that in this case.

You've presented slanted, anecdotal discussions of topics which many regard as highly inflammatory. The cites list 3rd-person interpretations of people's frame of mind. That's supposed to be evidence? Unattributed quotes presented with no context is supposed to be evidence? Unattributed paraphrases are supposed to be evidence?

One can point to anecdotal evidence on almost any topic in an attempt to support almost any proposition. That doesn't mean that the proposition is logically supportable.

You've not presented evidence of a "slippery slope", nor of a "death culture and pressure to suicide" IMO. If you have evidence, or a logical discussion on the topic in your own words, I'd like to see it. Your cites don't seem to me to relate to the things you discussed in the starting post in this thread.

Your trolling isn't working to well in this case, if that's your intent. I'm disappointed that you seemingly can't support your position better.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Careful there.
The trouble with cheap dismissals like that is they work both ways.

I see your pink unicorn and raise you one willful refusal to understand.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Re: You're pointing to invisible pink unicorns.
One can point to anecdotal evidence on almost any topic in an attempt to support almost any proposition. That doesn't mean that the proposition is logically supportable.


Which is, of course, what I was trying to do. (And thank you, Scott, for recognizing it. For at least one person here, reading is a skill that has been mastered.)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New Puh-LEEZE!
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New Definitely an interesting article.
Interesting excerpt...

They also note that dependency is an issue primarily for people who are not actually dependent, and that like other difficulties in life, dependency is a circumstance to which people adjust with time.


Very interesting. They're telling me I'll adjust to it in time. Don't worry about what I think, it'll be fine.

I don't know if I like being told what to think.
New The joy of assisted suicide
[link|http://www.haciendapub.com/smith.html|Death culture meets the sexual revolution]

Excerpt:

Smith calls acceptance of euthanasia "terminal nonjudgmentalism." He finds a good example in A Chosen Death by Lonny Shavelson, an emergency physician, who describes "Gene" who has had strokes and depression but is not terminal. Sarah, from the Hemlock Society, is given the task of assisting in his death. Sarah found her first killing experience tremendously satisfying and powerful, "the most intimate experience you can share with a person...More than sex. More than birth." Sarah gives Gene the poisonous brew as if she were handing him a beer. Gene drinks the liquid, falls asleep on Sarah's lap who then places a plastic bag over his head and croons, "See the light. Go to the light." But Gene, suddenly faced with the
prospect of immediate death, changes his mind and screams out...and tries to rip the bag off his face. Sarah won't allow it, catches Gene's wrist and holds it. Gene's body thrusts upwards and Sarah lays across Gene's shoulders...pinning him down, twisting the bag to seal it tight. Gene's body stops moving.


I say:

Sarah's last words to Gene: "Was it good for you, too?"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
     Help me, I've been politicized! - (marlowe) - (20)
         Well... - (bepatient)
         Enlightenment comes from within. :-) - (Another Scott) - (16)
             Death culture and the pressure to suicide - (marlowe) - (15)
                 Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                 I don't see the connection.... - (Another Scott) - (13)
                     Thanks. Saved trouble - I go with your rebuttal too. -NT - (Ashton)
                     You're missing the point by a mile - (marlowe)
                     How the slippery slope works - (marlowe) - (9)
                         OK, let's talk about a slippery slope - (jb4) - (7)
                             Er.... - (marlowe) - (6)
                                 I think you know better. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                     Argument? What argument? - (marlowe) - (3)
                                         You're pointing to invisible pink unicorns. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                             Careful there. - (marlowe)
                                             Re: You're pointing to invisible pink unicorns. - (jb4)
                                 Puh-LEEZE! -NT - (jb4)
                         Definitely an interesting article. - (Simon_Jester)
                     The joy of assisted suicide - (marlowe)
         Irish blood will out. - (boxley)
         Too Serious - (deSitter)

Powered by the LRPD: LRPD
110 ms