One of the dilemma's facing the medical profession is that years ago people died because medicine was not able to treat them effectively.

As treatment and management of certain diseases improved, so did the life expectancy of those with these diseases. Subsequently more people with those diseases were surviving longer.

In fact if many of these people were living in third world countries their life expectancy would not be very long.

With increasing numbers, there is increasing demand, and pressure on existing resources.

This creates a quandry.

At some time all of us are going to die. The decision is how and when.

at some stage the last beat of our heart, should be the last beat.

Defining euthanasia!

The day we are born. The government has us, no matter what! And we will fill our time with the best we have and bring in this world with the human we will give. But on our death bed, DON'T you you tell us when our time is up! Every person has the chance to live the life all are given, and the choice of living on this great world.

I will have to agree with most posters on this subject, and when my time comes, Please! Dont let me......... sorry!

I can not Finnish.

mmTT

King Hazza

Perhaps the most illogical thing is your hostility? Surely it is a basic courtesy to assume that all on the forum share an interest in improving the human condition? And I can assure you that I am interested in the subject and its implications. And I also think that ideas should survive on their own, not by virtue of the parties pushing them.

Now you call for drugs like nembutal to be made more readily available. But this would make it easier for anyone to commit suicide, which would presumably include people suffering from unmanaged or unstable mental illnesses. So by helping some you could inadvertently cause the death of others. Would that make our society a better one?

It is unfortunate you cannot manage problems in isolation, but it is the reality.

Small mind indeed Fester.
"And I also think that ideas should survive on their own, not by virtue of the parties pushing them"
Except that those ideas were stupid, shallow and easily debunked- including on this very forum last week. I'm not going to bother slowly showing you all the points myself and others have already made, the fact that you show you're clearly behind in the debate on a point already passed tells me you should have tried reading more instead of pretending the issue stops where you think it does.

Secondly, people committing suicide is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, regardless how sad it is (ignoring that a simple requirement to be either really old, or suffering a debilitating or terminal affliction could be placed). Same deal with your belief of someone relinquishing the right to control their own bodies via mental illnesses (which also have extensive guidelines ourselves, again, already discussed).

The fact that you're too lazy to get all the facts or alternatively, pretend they aren't there and never actually mention them to try to argue against simply dumbs the discussion down. Add to that an odd hostility towards what most argue is a basic right is why others are hostile towards you.

Read through the answers to your questions, then get back to the big people discussion.

King Hazza

Perhaps you should read the climate change threads? No shortage of tail chasing there. I certainly dont see a group of people discussing point after point, coming to an agreement, then moving on.

As for your hostility, it only belittles your argument. If my questions were adequately answered then what need would I have to repeat them? You suggest that all I have to do is read through the threads and all will be revealed to me, yet I seem to be having a bit of trouble finding these revelations.

For example, I cannot find a logical explanation of how I can travel into the future and instruct health practitioners to end my life when I am in the terminal stages of Alzheimer's disease or some other malady. Yet it seems to me that some on the forum believe that signing a piece of paper can give one that ability.

And while agreeing with you that suicide is a personal matter, I think that some might view medical treatment as something more than relinquishing your right to control your body. Surely you dont see the treatment or epilepsy as relinquishing the control of your brain to a medical practitioner? Similarly, the objective of treating a suicidal person is to give them the opportunity for a better life. Would you rather the psychiatrist tell a suicidal patient, "Well, it's none of my business if you want to kill yourself. Would you like a script for some Nembutal?". I would rather they didn't do that.

Bull, Fester.
The 'answers to your questions' WERE answered in agonizing detail in the other euthanasia thread last week- and it's clear you made little attempt to find them as much as excuses not to.

The 'script for the future' is simple. If I am dedicated enough to demand my life ended if I am ever in an incapacitated state, I would express this as a pre-plan to be told to any doctors who would be caring for me. Faced with this, they would assume my will is to die and kill me. If I made no such statement, the doctors would simply assume lacking an expressed wish to die, my will would be to LIVE. If I am never in an incapacitated state, this clause simply would not happen. Not rocket science. I don't get what your childish clairvoyance analogy comes into play.

The 'none of your business' is simple, that nobody has the right to force someone NOT to kill ones self.
Also, you haven't even bothered to note my post that the condition for receiving a dose of a fatal drug to administer to yourself MUST be met with the condition of a terminal/debilitating illness could be implemented.

Which is why I'm talking to you like you're an ignorant mug. Not only am I wasting my time babysitting you through old points because you're too lazy, but you can't even concentrate on the posts I'm making now.

Don't even bother replying until you ask a smart question.