Do I have a right to die?

[McBell]

Not according to the Deity. According to the Deity, God, It's rules apply to everyone.

Says you.
But then there are loads of others who say something quite different.
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

 

[McBell]

Of course, but they are just that, concepts.

I understand that you are likely not going to understand this, but your concept is also merely a concept.

 

[blackout]

Says you.
But then there are loads of others who say something quite different.
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Because,... he's right.
And the others aren't.

DUH.

 

[McBell]

As a human we are severely limited in our scope of understanding. We don't see the inner workings of the spiritual worlds. Put it this way, you have an IQ of 150, God has an IQ of 4000 (really, infinity). Who's the better place to judge?

I am going to have to go with man.
Unless of course someones god concept actually steps forward...

 

[Brendan ben David]

LOL. But your God concept isn't. (a concept)

Because it's yours. and you like it.

Yes, it's a concept. But it is a concept that has lasted over 3000 years unchanged, whereas others started relatively about 5 minutes ago. And the origins of the monotheistic Judeo-christian God can be backed up using scientifically provable methods.

Says you.
But then there are loads of others who say something quite different.
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

I know I have truth, so I am not afraid to state what I know.

I understand that you are likely not going to understand this, but your concept is also merely a concept.

Because,... he's right.
And the others aren't.

DUH.

If Truth is available, there cannot be a plethora of contradicting answers. And there is no need to belittle me UV.

 

[blackout]

Yes, it's a concept. But it is a concept that has lasted over 3000 years unchanged, whereas others started relatively about 5 minutes ago. And the origins of the monotheistic Judeo-christian God can be backed up using scientifically provable methods.



I know I have truth, so I am not afraid to state what I know.





If Truth is available, there cannot be a plethora of contradicting answers. And there is no need to belittle me UV.

You speak as if your preferences and opinions are fact,
instead of your preferences and opinions.
This is not helpful to discussion.
You can't "prove" (or substantiate) your opinions and preferences,
with your other opinions and preferences.



As to your other comments,
they would take up a whole other thread.
or Two.
Best to seperate discussions into managble bits.

 

[MissAlice]

As a human we are severely limited in our scope of understanding. We don't see the inner workings of the spiritual worlds. Put it this way, you have an IQ of 150, God has an IQ of 4000 (really, infinity). Who's the better place to judge.

An IQ to me is not what I would fully define as infinite intelligence. But I would have to have proof of this judge called god before I could dispute these claims.

 

[Brendan ben David]

You speak as if your preferences and opinions are fact,
instead of your preferences and opinions.
This is not helpful to discussion.
You can't "prove" (or substantiate) your opinions and preferences,
with your other opinions and preferences.



As to your other comments,
they would take up a whole other thread.
or Two.
Best to seperate discussions into managble bits.

I speak of what I know. I need not change the way I speak in order to appease people. I hope we can continue to discuss issues of a spiritual nature in the future.

An IQ to me is not what I would fully define as infinite intelligence. But I would have to have proof of this judge called god before I could dispute these claims.

[youtube]LzetqYev_AI[/youtube]
Beyond Intelligent Design - Scientific Proof of God << short 30m video

Also, "Permission To Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God's Existence" by Lawrence Keleman, is a good book to start with.

 

[Vendetta]

The first of Jack Kevorkian's patients had Alzheimer's. She wasn't in physical pain. She was horrified what what she might lose next, that she wouldn't be able to recognize herself in the mirror.... or that she wouldn't be able to recognize her husband... she knew it wouldn't get better, so she wanted to end it before she had to experience it getting worse. She was already at the point where she could step out of her house and not know where she was going... or even where she was.

I am not concerned with kavorkian he is the least ideal example

 

[blackout]

I speak of what I know. I need not change the way I speak in order to appease people. I hope we can continue to discuss issues of a spiritual nature in the future.

I also speak of what I know.


I know that YOU are the Deity.
Thus,
"According to the Deity" means,
"According to You".

And that's fine.
But it is what it is.

 

[Barcode]

As Kevorkian said, any time you do a procedure or give a patient medicine, you're basically playing God. You're interfering with the course nature chose for a person's body. So the whole "Euthanasia = Playing God" business goes out the window. And the modern Hippocratic Oath, as penned in 1964, is aware that it might be necessary to take a patients life. "But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty."



All Kevorkian did was take your views "As a man" and apply them as a physician.

Well as an oncologist, I respectfully disagree. Cancer is maladaptive and there is no natural benefit nor is it something that should be in the body. I would say, philosophically, that the course nature takes is that the response the body gives from such a maladaptive disease. Giving treament, with proper caution isn't playing God, its being a physician. When referring to God I am talking about a physician serving as the sustainer of life and bringer of death. It is my job as a physician to provide the best medical therapy for the patient. Kavorkians thought on playing God when it comes to medicine just merely justifies his reasons for killing his patience.

Physicians shouldn't decide whether who lives and dies. I believe this will stigmatize our job. I believe in dealing with right to death issues there are gray areas as to who performs such procedures. Mentally I just couldn't bring myself to inject someone with sodium thiopental, Pavulon (also known as Pancuronium Bromide) and Potassium Chloride. Even though they were suffering to be the bringer of death is something that would psychologically effect me.

 

[McBell]

Well as an oncologist, I respectfully disagree. Cancer is maladaptive and there is no natural benefit nor is it something that should be in the body. I would say, philosophically, that the course nature takes is that the response the body gives from such a maladaptive disease. Giving treament, with proper caution isn't playing God, its being a physician. When referring to God I am talking about a physician serving as the sustainer of life and bringer of death. It is my job as a physician to provide the best medical therapy for the patient. Kavorkians thought on playing God when it comes to medicine just merely justifies his reasons for killing his patience.

Physicians shouldn't decide whether who lives and dies. I believe this will stigmatize our job. I believe in dealing with right to death issues there are gray areas as to who performs such procedures. Mentally I just couldn't bring myself to inject someone with sodium thiopental, Pavulon (also known as Pancuronium Bromide) and Potassium Chloride. Even though they were suffering to be the bringer of death is something that would psychologically effect me.

Interesting how so many people consider "pulling the plug" playing god, but putting the patient on the machine to keep them alive in the first place some how isn't "playing god".
I am not saying you are one of those people, just that it is an interesting double standard shared by a majority.

 

[waitasec]

Physicians shouldn't decide whether who lives and dies. I believe this will stigmatize our job. I believe in dealing with right to death issues there are gray areas as to who performs such procedures. Mentally I just couldn't bring myself to inject someone with sodium thiopental, Pavulon (also known as Pancuronium Bromide) and Potassium Chloride. Even though they were suffering to be the bringer of death is something that would psychologically effect me.

who says they are...?
if the patient is already dying a slow painful death, why not make that experience less painful...? the amount of empathy for those who are suffering is not impressive, to say the least.

 

[horizon_mj1]

All wisdom is found within Torah, while some of this wisdom can be found within other doctrines.

You are dead wrong. Show me in the Torah the solution to all quantum sciences to start with. You allow yourself to be disillusioned by thinking the Divine would only allow one avenue or resource to guid you. Has the the complexity of the Divine taught you nothing??

If a deity exists, then sin exists irrespective of whether or not one's chosen to accept the Deity.

This just states to me the relevance of existence, what is your point?

The sins of one's parents, grandparents, great-grandparents... and/or this righteous soul has chosen to return and suffer to save others from suffering in his/her place.

Sounds to me like you choose to believe we are the Fallen Ones, good for you, I however do not nor will I ever agree. Reading a book shows nothing beyond the fact that you read it; how it is understood is much more important. Did you ever think for one moment that maybe existence is a melting pot of various different beliefs, all being True, could you handle it then, knowing you fed yourself half Truth?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Interesting how so many people consider "pulling the plug" playing god, but putting the patient on the machine to keep them alive in the first place some how isn't "playing god".
I am not saying you are one of those people, just that it is an interesting double standard shared by a majority.

Excellent point. (That is one of the reasons I disallow life support machines to be used on myself.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Everybody has the right to die any time they wish. Many people practice this right each and every day.

 

[Oneatatime]

Very simple what the ethical ramifications regarding Euthenasia? Although in hospitals patients have many rights, they don't have a right to die. However what about suffering should we consider this practice if a patient is in tremendous amount of agony even if they consent to it? What are some of your thoughts?

In the UK you have the right to die but its illlegal for anyone to help you die. Innevitably this means that there are many people out there who wish to die but who can't because nobody will assist them.

Euthenasia should be allowed, including assisted suicide, when a person has decided with support that this is their wish. If they suffer from something which causes them to be unable to express their wishes at some point in the future this decision cannot be overiden by family members who are basically acting in their own self interests.

In the end a persons life if there own and the main opposition beyond religion nonsense is the fact that people want to avoid the pain of losing someone they care about. There is a valid arguement for ensuring that Euthenasia isn't abused just so that people can get their inheritence or that a person may choose suicide prematurely but these dangers can be addressed and don't warrant a ban on assisted euthenasia.

 

[no-body]

Like abortion this is a very tricky subject because there is no black and white answer, there are so many different situations that can pop up to muddle things up. It is also hard to use common sense in such an emotionally charged topic.

Personally extreme pain wouldn't bother me, I would try to cling to life to the very end just to experience it all. But the moment my mental faculties where diminished and I became a burden to my family or even just the doctors I would say it's time to pull the plug since I am no longer "me"

I can understand why people would have an affection for a slab of meat that used to look like someone they knew but if science can't do anything, give the person some dignity and let it go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But what is problematic here is doctors who swear to preserve life cannot be the reason someone is annihilated. This alone contradicts the oath many residents take upon completion of their residency

Which oath?

I Googled "hippocratic oath" for the exact text, and there's nothing in this version I found that necessarily precludes euthanasia when it's done responsibly: Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you mean some other oath?

Physicians shouldn't decide whether who lives and dies. I believe this will stigmatize our job. I believe in dealing with right to death issues there are gray areas as to who performs such procedures.

If we're talking about people with terminal illness, then the physician isn't deciding whether the patient should live and die; that's already a foregone conclusion. The decision is only about when and under what circumstances that inevitable death should occur.

Mentally I just couldn't bring myself to inject someone with sodium thiopental, Pavulon (also known as Pancuronium Bromide) and Potassium Chloride. Even though they were suffering to be the bringer of death is something that would psychologically effect me.

Could you bring yourself to subject a person to months or years of pain before the death that they know is coming? Because in many cases, the choice not to pursue euthanasia is a choice for just that.

 

[Vendetta]

who says they are...?
if the patient is already dying a slow painful death, why not make that experience less painful...? the amount of empathy for those who are suffering is not impressive, to say the least.

I think we he is saying is physicians assisting in euthenasia. What you're talking about is pain management