http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxd_EFDd4s&feature=related

Runner and all that like to cast down their so-call humanity, and I would like you to look at this once again. Its true most members can see the human in themselves, but unfortunately some cant.

Runner! When you stand before your god, and he ask you why the people did not show mercy and kindness, what are you going to say?

Thank-goodness for the men and women of this forum that have compassion
and the real sence of the word, and not these hypocrites that pretend to be gods children.

Like the young lady said...... you would not treat your dog in this manner.

And if GOD is true like you say my friends, I can only imagine he would frown down upon you with the look of discuss.

Go on......... look at her!

And yes it is simple.

"Those suddenly rendered incapable of expressing their wishes would rely on some kind of WILL expressed to a medical or legal representative prior to the situation, as proof that they would prefer to die. Without it, then they could arguably not have the will to die, with no expressed intent to base this judgement on."

and the above is just one of the many things that needs to look at with most haste and never let this happen again.

It can be worked out.

Thank you.

TTM

lol. That made me laugh. smile.

We could call it Runner's law because Runner would be the first to see Red's under the beds behind progressive ideas and use the 'S' word. Personally I like Socialists very much and I don't mind them being associated with such ideas. It just gets tedious that's all.
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:22:51 PM

Pelican I apologise. It is strange however that I have never heard people calling for a referendum on Islam immigration, off shore processing of illegal immigrants or late term abortion. We did see however how the zealots performed when people recently voted against gay marriage in California. I take it you think the Government should of agreed to the wishes of the people? If not why would you propose a referendum on euthenasia?
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:43:11 PM

Oh runner, lol Give it time my friend, all of what you have mentioned is just around the corner, and I,ve just started to grow hitler moe.

TTM.

smile.

Thanks, King Hazza, I'm working through the ramifications of what you wrote. But I don't think it is at all 'simple'.

Surely the essential factor is the autonomy of the person ? I have no problem with what in the olden days used to be called 'suicide' - an act of a person in relation to him/herself alone. Of course, wherever possible, potential suiciders should be identified, helped, counselled, encouraged to always look on the bright side of life, etc. But the final choice should be theirs alone.

Where a person cannot act, and has to rely on another person/agent or entity, it gets more complicated. Clearly, they must be of sound mind, so this rules out any discussion of people with Alzheimer's, and those sorts of illnesses.

I'm also uneasy about using 'poor quality of life' as some sort of rationale - this really is starting to get uncomfortably close to rubbing out the unwanted. 'Quality of life' should play no part whatsoever: if anything, surely someone who has had a poor 'quality of life' is entitled to some compensatory or higher 'quality of life' ? But it should be their call, nobody else's.

No, your Majesty, forgive me but I don't think it is 'simple' at all. To be continued ......

I believe that one should have autonomy to die as one wishes.

However, I do not believe in involving others.

Doctors already can give pain relief which is known, will shorten the life of the sufferer.

What patients and doctors should address is whether a particular course/protocol is prolonging life, or prolonging the dying process.

Danielle is at least honest about the belief many supporting euthanasia have

'I believe that one should have autonomy to die as one wishes. '

It is sickening how many insist that its about compassion. Many supporters of euthanasia know if they were honest to the public about them seeing this as a rights issue rather than a compassionate one then they would have little chance of succeeding with attempts to legalise killing.

Loudmouth- you are absolutely correct, and I must apologize that I didn't clarify before;

But yes, my point is that the Euthanizer can ONLY act if the patient actually asks them to kill them.

Quality of life is simply an extended clause to remove requirement of doctors or euthanizers to kill someone in event of a legal loophole of requesting the treatment in a brief temporary state that may likely not continue to provide the same answer (as the double-check before hitting the switch measure).
This I personally don't mind if you find innappropriate, because it is more of a contentious failsafe than an ideal process.

Pre-statement of death in event of prevention of self-expression being another one;
(to be continued)