The world has lost a great humanitarian

[dross]

So mercy killing is fine then? Its morally justified then right?

What are you calling "mercy killing?" Please define.

Reasonable take except for you asking one/someone to do it, that is the part I have problems with...

Again lets review the definition of Murder, justified or not:

Respectfully, you're making yourself look silly with your circular argument.

I am not arguing that murder is illegal. I am not arguing that assisted suicide is currently defined by law as murder. I CONCEDE THESE POINTS.

They are also irrelevant to my argument, which is: The government has no moral justification to make assisted suicide a crime. I'm arguing that it SHOULD NOT be illegal. Stop telling me what we both already know, and answer my argument.

Well then I wholeheartedly disagree then, yes it has the power to make it illegal, but I would say that it also has the moral justification to make murder illegal.

Do you understand anything about argument? You can't just SAY it's morally justified - if I'm arguing it's not morally justified and you say it is, it is YOU who must provide the justification. An unsupported assertion is not an argument.

I guess it would be ok to make mercy killing ok and legal, surely that could not get out of hand right?

What the hell are you talking about?

If you keep this up, I'm going to send you a bill for a Logic 101 class.

 

[edsinger]

Thank you this has been an agrement of mine for YEARS and why I was able to pull the plug on my mother. Yes, I wish someone like JK would have been there so my final memories were not of watching her struggle to breathe, wracked with pain that the morphine did nothing for, and unable to move or speak.

First I am sorry for your loss, and I feel for your decision as it must have been a difficult one..

But to address the topic, your doctor/you did not help your mother commit suicide.......You/someone pulled the plug and let nature take its course which is what I was arguing was fine and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kitty]

First I am sorry for your loss, and I feel for your decision as it must have been a difficult one..

But to address the topic, your doctor/you did not help your mother commit suicide.......You/someone pulled the plug and let nature take its course which is what I was arguing was fine and there is nothing wrong with that.

And if they would have let me turn that machine up to a lethal dose or give me a shot that would have let her fall a sleep as her heart just stopped - I would have done it WITHOUT hesitation. That is my point, I had to watch her SUFFER for over an hour as she slowly sufficated. Give me the needle and get the h'll out the room.

I appreciate what this man did on a personal level. Why at 40 I have a medical POA and a DNR! Lives are "extended" by man made - machine and drugs - sometimes EVEN if you don't want it (Wis - lukemia patients forced by the courts into chemo, anyone remember that one?!?)

I don't need the government at my "guardian", I'm mentally fit and actually quite intelligent. They do not know what is "best" for me and mine. I do. Get your legal and moral mothering out of my personal life. If I choose to die, my family supports it, and someone is willing to help me - I am NOT hurting anyone on this list, no one bloddy burecrate will notice - so why should you get a say in the decision?

I'm not saying this is best for you, who knows what your future will bring. I hope you will make the choices that best fit the lives of you and your family. And I PRAY the government will allow you to do so.

 

[edsinger]

What are you calling "mercy killing?" Please define..

Well I will give you my version of it anyway...

Scenario - You put someone out of their misery for whatever reason. Technically it would still be murder but the consequences thereof would be between your maker and yourself. I would not consider this cold blooded murder by any means even though premeditated. What comes to mind again is a 'hopeless battlefield situation'.

Respectfully, you're making yourself look silly with your circular argument..

Am I? Well I guess so if that is how you feel.

I am not arguing that murder is illegal. I am not arguing that assisted suicide is currently defined by law as murder. I CONCEDE THESE POINTS..

I understand that you do.....thank you.

They are also irrelevant to my argument, which is: The government has no moral justification to make assisted suicide a crime. I'm arguing that it SHOULD NOT be illegal. Stop telling me what we both already know, and answer my argument..

I argue that the government has the right to make it illegal, in a society where we start saying that killing is ok if the conditions warrant it, we loose our humanity.

But in the same token, war - killing is legal and justified then...now that is a circular argument. War is for the protection of society so I guess it makes sense in those regards.

Do you understand anything about argument? You can't just SAY it's morally justified - if I'm arguing it's not morally justified and you say it is, it is YOU who must provide the justification. An unsupported assertion is not an argument..

I understand it and I understand your position. It is presented to be one made from compassion. I understand it and I can understand the logic of it. I just don't buy it. You can say that allowing suicide is morally justified then fine. I can not....except for Masada, again a tough one indeed for me anyway.

What the hell are you talking about?If you keep this up, I'm going to send you a bill for a Logic 101 class.

I took logic 101 and quite frankly thought it was boring. Then again I do not look to solving my problems with this type of reasoning, which I guess is my heart talking.



And back to the title of this thread.....lets examine the man and what he stood for..

Dr. Kevorkian’s Wrong Way - New York Times

Dr. Kevorkian first drew national attention in 1990 when he hooked up a 54-year-old Alzheimer’s patient to his homemade suicide machine and watched as she pushed a button to release lethal drugs.

Alzheimer's are you kidding me? I know it is a terrible disease but how can one be of sound mind in this case?

What tripped him up was his ego and a limitless appetite for publicity. In a procedure that was taped to be shown later on national television, he gave the lethal injections to a 52-year-old man with Lou Gehrig’s disease — thereby moving beyond assisted suicide to euthanasia.

So he DID commit murder and not just give an assist.....hence why her served time in the pen. Great Humanitarian?

The fundamental flaw in Dr. Kevorkian’s crusade was his cavalier, indeed reckless, approach. He was happy to hook up patients without long-term knowledge of their cases or any corroborating medical judgment that they were terminally ill or suffering beyond hope of relief with aggressive palliative care. This was hardly “doing it right” as Dr. Kevorkian likes to believe.

And this is from the NYT no less, its an article that is pro Euthanasia and et some claim the topics are not related....

 

[edsinger]

And if they would have let me turn that machine up to a lethal dose or give me a shot that would have let her fall a sleep as her heart just stopped - I would have done it WITHOUT hesitation. That is my point, I had to watch her SUFFER for over an hour as she slowly sufficated. Give me the needle and get the h'll out the room.

I understand your feelings on it. But please try and understand mine for a second. You had to watch her, knowing she was in pain and dying, so you would have given the shot. I can deal with that, but your mother did not commit the act thereof. You would have had to deal with it, and if your mother would not have wanted to push the button then you will have relieved her of her pain. An admirable act for sure.

I appreciate what this man did on a personal level. Why at 40 I have a medical POA and a DNR! Lives are "extended" by man made - machine and drugs - sometimes EVEN if you don't want it (Wis - lukemia patients forced by the courts into chemo, anyone remember that one?!?)

Well I don't and I posted some of the questionable acts he did including murder the man with Lou Gehrig's disease.

I don't need the government at my "guardian", I'm mentally fit and actually quite intelligent. They do not know what is "best" for me and mine. I do. Get your legal and moral mothering out of my personal life. If I choose to die, my family supports it, and someone is willing to help me - I am NOT hurting anyone on this list, no one bloddy burecrate will notice - so why should you get a say in the decision?

So we don't need government in our lives? For the most part I agree but there has to be laws and laws specific against the taking of human life, otherwise how can we even function as a society.

Look at where this practice is legal...see what has happened once allowed to be legal..

In your specific case, I would not be one wanting to charge you for administering the shot. Why because you were doing it out of compassion. But can you see the potential for abuse?

Scenario,
An elderly person of faith that would under no circumstances ever even consider suicide, is terminally ill and will pass soon. The argument goes that she should be allowed to end her life.

This person can so what my dad did, and wait until his maker called him home.

I'm not saying this is best for you, who knows what your future will bring. I hope you will make the choices that best fit the lives of you and your family. And I PRAY the government will allow you to do so.

 

[Kitty]

edsinger - my point is that it should be allowable. Some state list sucide as a crime. So if you do it wrong, you can go to jail or at the very least spend some time in the "nut house". That will help. I would NEVER step on your rights or beliefs. You do not believe that someone should take their own life with assistance. So don't do it.

I belief that they should. So adding nothing that relates to god, religious convictions, personal morality - why should I not be able to? Or the agent I assign who is comfortable with the idea?

That is my simple arguement. All I've ever been given as a reason is either "it's illegal - so are handguns in IL, guess that' ok because the government says so; or something that refers to a religion conviction - ten commandments, religious upbringing.

For me legal and "correct/right" are two seperate things. And when it comes to religion, I'm not going to diacuss this any further than to say I'm not a Christian, nor do I belive in Christian ideals. Thus, both agruments are moot to me.

 

[edsinger]

edsinger - my point is that it should be allowable. Some state list sucide as a crime. So if you do it wrong, you can go to jail or at the very least spend some time in the "nut house". That will help. I would NEVER step on your rights or beliefs. You do not believe that someone should take their own life with assistance. So don't do it.

I will not. I happen to differ with you on whether it should be allowable. legally that is. The potential of abuse is too severe. What if your mother had entered the hospital and the doctors told you she was done and then asked you how you would like to 'end' the issue? If doctors and (insurance) companies are allowed to make the decision and not the person nor family? Can you see the issue with that?

I belief that they should. So adding nothing that relates to god, religious convictions, personal morality - why should I not be able to? Or the agent I assign who is comfortable with the idea?

Well that all good and dandy except when the choice is no longer yours.. What is being advocated here will lead to just that. If you and your doctor decide there is no real reason to continue the fight, there are ways to make that happen. Maybe not as fast as you would like but it could happen. In nursing homes today, those choices are being made already by non-family members. My step-father was one of those cases. He passed and you could tell the legalese already started.....

That is my simple arguement. All I've ever been given as a reason is either "it's illegal - so are handguns in IL, guess that' ok because the government says so; or something that refers to a religion conviction - ten commandments, religious upbringing.

The government is not always right. The value put on human life is already under fire in the US and that will not change.

For me legal and "correct/right" are two seperate things. And when it comes to religion, I'm not going to diacuss this any further than to say I'm not a Christian, nor do I belive in Christian ideals. Thus, both agruments are moot to me.

Granted. I understand then.

Correct and right are two different things, of that I will agree. But let me ask you, should everyone be able to do what they think is right? Can you see the conflict with a civilized society? YOur mother was but one case, what of the elderly person with no family? Who speaks for them?

 

[dross]

Well I will give you my version of it anyway...

Scenario - You put someone out of their misery for whatever reason. Technically it would still be murder but the consequences thereof would be between your maker and yourself. I would not consider this cold blooded murder by any means even though premeditated. What comes to mind again is a 'hopeless battlefield situation'.

Using your definition, "mercy killing" is not morally justified, IMO, unless the person asked to be killed.

Am I? Well I guess so if that is how you feel.

It is not how I FEEL. It is a fact that you are using circular reasoning. It is a fact that circular reasoning is logically fallacious. It is a fact that relying on this is silly. It is a fact that someone who continues to use this kind of fallacious argument should be ignored. I'm not ignoring you because I want my destruction of your ridiculous fallacious argument to be witnessed by everyone who reads this.

I understand that you do.....thank you.

If you understand as you say you do, why do you continue to make hammer a point I've already conceded?

I argue that the government has the right to make it illegal, in a society where we start saying that killing is ok if the conditions warrant it, we loose our humanity.

Quick lesson in freedom: Goverments have NO rights. Governments have power. Killing has ALWAYS been okay if conditions warrant it. If we were going to lose our humanity over that, we'd have lost it a long time ago again and again.

"Cry 'Kindness!' and loose the dogs of humanity!"

But in the same token, war - killing is legal and justified then...now that is a circular argument. War is for the protection of society so I guess it makes sense in those regards.

You don't know what a circular argument is, do you? Killing is justified in war. Start a separate thread and I'll explain it to you without using circular reasoning.

I understand it and I understand your position. It is presented to be one made from compassion. I understand it and I can understand the logic of it. I just don't buy it. You can say that allowing suicide is morally justified then fine. I can not....except for Masada, again a tough one indeed for me anyway.

I say it's justified and I gave my argument for it. Please tell me why in your opinion, I may not choose to end my own life and request others assist me. You have not provided a moral justification for the government to exercise the power to prevent this. All you've been able to do is assert it is wrong, without supporting your assertion, and then you've argued again and again that it is illegal. You have yet to explain why you think it's wrong, except something about loosing our humanity, which personally, I think is a good thing.

I took logic 101 and quite frankly thought it was boring. Then again I do not look to solving my problems with this type of reasoning, which I guess is my heart talking.

I often find subjects I don't understand to be boring. Solving problems with the heart instead of with the brain and with logic is responsible for much of the tragedy in the world. Congratulations for embracing that dangerous and tyrannical method of problem solving.

 

[NYFelon]

ed, so am I right in my estimation that generally speaking, your opposition is based on religious/ faith type issues? I'm not trying to get personal, nor am I attacking your faith, let's just get that out of the way. I'm asking out of sincere curiosity.

 

[Fletch]

Solving problems with the heart instead of with the brain and with logic is responsible for much of the tragedy in the world. Congratulations for embracing that dangerous and tyrannical method of problem solving.

Hey, it gave us gun control, so it can't be all bad, right?

 

[Kitty]

I will not. I happen to differ with you on whether it should be allowable. legally that is. The potential of abuse is too severe. What if your mother had entered the hospital and the doctors told you she was done and then asked you how you would like to 'end' the issue? If doctors and (insurance) companies are allowed to make the decision and not the person nor family? Can you see the issue with that?

I'm not talking about a doctor or insurance company. I'm talking about a person making an informed decision about their lives. If I want assisted suicide, I can't have it without risking the person who is willing to help me. That is wrong. I should have that choice.

No said hand it over to the doctors and insurance. Although, I work with insurance companies daily. They do make these decisions. Whether or not a treatment is acceptable or "effective". People die all the time because of what insurance companies will allow or even let a doctor offer to a patient. Yes it is by denial of treatment, so that's ok I guess.


Well that all good and dandy except when the choice is no longer yours.. What is being advocated here will lead to just that. If you and your doctor decide there is no real reason to continue the fight, there are ways to make that happen. Maybe not as fast as you would like but it could happen. In nursing homes today, those choices are being made already by non-family members. My step-father was one of those cases. He passed and you could tell the legalese already started.....

Different issue. I'm talking about a competent individual making a decision about their own life.


The government is not always right. The value put on human life is already under fire in the US and that will not change.

The value of life has been under question since the first laws were written. Once again, we have different ideals, ethics, and morals.



Granted. I understand then.

Correct and right are two different things, of that I will agree. But let me ask you, should everyone be able to do what they think is right? Can you see the conflict with a civilized society? YOur mother was but one case, what of the elderly person with no family? Who speaks for them?

I think they should be able to make the decision if they want to live or die, the quality of their own life. The singular decision we are talking about effects NO ONE except the individual and their family. So that is where the decision should be made. Either way.

No we have the old person with no one to speak for him/her? Come on, first that is not what we are talking about. Second, if you don't think insurance and Medicaid are deciding the quality/quantity of these people lives already you are sorely mistaken.

I'm sorry, but I'm starting to feel like a dog chasing it's tail without all the fun dizziness.

This is going in a way someone needs to say it: "Soylent Green is People!"

 

[edsinger]

Using your definition, "mercy killing" is not morally justified, IMO, unless the person asked to be killed..

Who is talking circles? That was a legitimate reason to kill in my mind. It still does not take the meaning of KILL away no matter the reason. So it is moral for me to ask someone to KILL me? How is that fair? How can I knowingly put that on their conscience? That is unless I don't give a flying fart about them and quite frankly suicide is cowardice, that is my opinion and it HAS effected my family. Have you had to deal with it? Although in my case it was not someone who was terminally ill so that is not the same.

It is not how I FEEL. It is a fact that you are using circular reasoning. It is a fact that circular reasoning is logically fallacious. It is a fact that relying on this is silly. It is a fact that someone who continues to use this kind of fallacious argument should be ignored. I'm not ignoring you because I want my destruction of your ridiculous fallacious argument to be witnessed by everyone who reads this..

I am not using circular reasoning, I am using my HUMANITY and love for my fellow human being to argue that fact that KILLING is wrong. I think more of human life than taking a damn dog to the vet to have it put down. Notice the work IT. And then your going to bring a freshman 101 class to try and demean my argument? WTF?

If you understand as you say you do, why do you continue to make hammer a point I've already conceded? .

I am not trying to lay on that one particular item but it is part of my general thought process. Being that as it may, you conceded it is illegal. Now I ask you, WHY is it illegal and why has it been that way for how many years? Why? What is your moral argument now?

Quick lesson in freedom: Goverments have NO rights. Governments have power. Killing has ALWAYS been okay if conditions warrant it. If we were going to lose our humanity over that, we'd have lost it a long time ago again and again. .

They have Power to pass laws that protect LIFE, as all of them have had. Killing has never been ok, it has just been tolerated in the case of war. That is until 1973.

You don't know what a circular argument is, do you? Killing is justified in war. Start a separate thread and I'll explain it to you without using circular reasoning..

No kidding? thanks for pointing that out to me



How about this for a circular argument. You believe that the option to have someone to commit murder/kill/homicide should be legal and that would grant us the rights we are inherently born with. Fine, how do you justify it? Is it now because YOU think it is ok? You want society to trust your judgment on it? And you talk of Government power. Governments and ours in particular are elected and tend to do what they are told (albeit not as of late). So society is changing, lets make it legal for assisted suicide. Now, what conditions would YOU ok it then? Would a recently divorced person who has lost it all to drinking warrant help? Where Dross do YOU draw the line?

I say it's justified and I gave my argument for it. Please tell me why in your opinion, I may not choose to end my own life and request others assist me. You have not provided a moral justification for the government to exercise the power to prevent this. All you've been able to do is assert it is wrong, without supporting your assertion, and then you've argued again and again that it is illegal. You have yet to explain why you think it's wrong, except something about loosing our humanity, which personally, I think is a good thing..

And I gave mine why I feel it isn't. What is the problem?

I already gave the reason for Government to exercise that power. It is to protect the sanctity of human life, no matter what the majority feels. It is illegal for a reason, some guys did not sit around in a church pew and write that murder is wrong. Oh, ok this shouldn't be murder and then comes the circular argument you speak of so much. Where and when is it decided what is and is not murder? Most of all who makes that decision?

I often find subjects I don't understand to be boring. Solving problems with the heart instead of with the brain and with logic is responsible for much of the tragedy in the world. Congratulations for embracing that dangerous and tyrannical method of problem solving.

Well since I am an engineer I find that funny. Logic was no more than something to pose questions and talk and discuss. How do you come to a decision about something, how to reason....

I personally don't approach things in that matter. I design things and when I said 101, I meant it. Once I got into other things that were frankly much more of a challenge than logic, I was no longer bored, I was challenged and I had the headaches to prove it.

 

[edsinger]

ed, so am I right in my estimation that generally speaking, your opposition is based on religious/ faith type issues? I'm not trying to get personal, nor am I attacking your faith, let's just get that out of the way. I'm asking out of sincere curiosity.

Yes my opposition is mainly based on that, but that being said, murder and killing is a basic no no no matter ones religion unless on holds no value to human life.

In 1973 we crossed that barrier and now how many kill for the sake of convenience?

Seriously?

 

[NYFelon]

murder and killing aren't synonomous though. If a stranger comes in your home intent on doing you harm, and you end his life with one of your firearms, you killed him, but did you murder him? I think not. If you get into a car accident, a genuine accident where no alcohol or other criminal behavior is involved, and the person in the other vehicle dies, did you murder them? No. When a combat soldier returns fire and kills the enemy, did he murder him?

Murder is the wanton and malicious taking of life without cause. Like the examples I gave prior, physician assisted suicide does not quite meet that criteria.

 

[edsinger]

I think they should be able to make the decision if they want to live or die, the quality of their own life. The singular decision we are talking about effects NO ONE except the individual and their family. So that is where the decision should be made. Either way.

Fair enough, so let the family decide and all will be good. All families love their family members right? There is no possibility of abuse if it were done that way......

No we have the old person with no one to speak for him/her? Come on, first that is not what we are talking about. Second, if you don't think insurance and Medicaid are deciding the quality/quantity of these people lives already you are sorely mistaken.

I have already made that exact case. In nursing homes today, in this country, Euthanasia is happening for many reasons, money, time, and for pure selfish reasons. Sometimes it is with the families consent. Sometimes they might even come and see their family once in a while and are really getting tired of that burden.

I mean we as a nation value life as long as that life meets what we consider our standards right?

 

[Kitty]

Yes my opposition is mainly based on that, but that being said, murder and killing is a basic no no no matter ones religion unless on holds no value to human life.

I'm really curious, have you studied any non-abrahamic religions? To clarify, religions that do not originate in the tenants of Judaism - Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. This is out of TRUE curiosity, I respect these religions. I have even studied them. I'm trying to understand>

 

[edsinger]

Murder is the wanton and malicious taking of life without cause. Like the examples I gave prior, physician assisted suicide does not quite meet that criteria.

All of what you said makes sense, except for the actual definition of murder. One of the caveats is premeditated.

In assisted suicide, it meets that definition. Murder does not have to be with malice.

 

[NYFelon]

I understand, and as others have said, yes - currently physician assisted suicide can legally be construed as murder. The contention is that the illegailty of it is immoral, and a position which the government has no place asserting itself. Physicians take an oath to HELP AND CARE FOR their patients to the best of their ability. Ending terminal suffering, in accordance with a patient's wishes is just such help.

 

[edsinger]

I understand, and as others have said, yes - currently physician assisted suicide can legally be construed as murder. The contention is that the illegailty of it is immoral, and a position which the government has no place asserting itself. Physicians take an oath to HELP AND CARE FOR their patients to the best of their ability. Ending terminal suffering, in accordance with a patient's wishes is just such help.

Ok lets take a look :Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.


But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

Emphasis mine,

I guess times are changing and us laggards need to get on board right?

 

[NYFelon]

heh.

let's look at the modern version instead, shall we?

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. 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. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.