Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled

anyway as far as i know (and i dont know very much about the city state structure of the US so feel free to correct me), Massachusetts is a STATE. ONE state, you cant claim that the US has UHC because one state does, its a step (not the step i would have advocated but it is a step) but its on a local level not a country wide level.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, Brian, I'm pretty sure that there is no Universal Health Care Act in the US, at least according to the quote you provided...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moving from Oregon I did say:

And Holland has an assisted suicide program in operation so it would be better we start there.

This is the question that was put to me:

And according to that article it does have "some form" of universal health care system be it state level , across America citizens have access to that type of healthcare.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

are you dumb, it doesnt matter if its state or fed or half half like australia. what matters is that its NATIONAL which the one you posted clearly isnt.

 

lets get to the nitty gritty. who here watched season 3 (i think) of 24 where they released the leathal virus?

if you did one of the agents got a box of suicide pills which were for agents being tortured and brought them to the hotel for all the infected.

who here thinks that was immoral and who would be the one to do it?

 

Depends on your interpretation. Most, if not all, public hospitals must treat "emergency conditions" until you are stabilized. If this is your definition of "universal healthcare", than yes, I suppose you are correct.

On the other hand:
Poor Families in America's Health Care Crisis

Wiki - for what it's worth

AHRQ

Universal Health Care

For some strange reason, a lot of people believe that there is no Universal Health Care available in the United States.

Wonder why all these people are so stupid?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, Brian you asked to discuss existing "assisted suicide" programs back in your post #174

I responded with some commentary on Oregon's version in post #178

Did you miss this post entirely?

Or did you just not respond because the reality contradicts your foolishness?

 

Again I don’t blame persons for wanting or choosing to die. I am against assisted suicide ultimately because of foreseeable future abuse on a wider scale. So I have to deny those wanting to die at present their wish, not for selfish reasons rather as I see it for the protection of the community.

This:

Denying him help then offering him death, some choice, is that “Death with Dignity” ?

All of those safeguards can be reinterpreted legally or modified, whence why I asked for a Patients bill of rights.

As for the vote yes.

 

Well then for the third Fucking time, lets start with Hollands system, as that is universal as Australias.

 

Im at work as I post so I am a little tested for time, explains late replies.

 

ok if your willing to post: the legislative framework for VE (from a gov source), a university grade assessment of the structure of there health care system citing any relivent legislation ect because as i have said 4 times now., i dont know anything about the health care system in holland

 

Translated: I am against assisted suicide even though I don't blame people who are for it.

So what? The result, if you had your way, is that those very individuals that you 'don't blame' for wanting to die because they are terminal ill, in extreme pain and / or have little to no quality of life would be prohibited by law from exercising this option. How benevolent of you not to 'blame them' for wanting to die.

How do you propose to protect your holy 'Patients bill of rights' from being 'reinterpreted legally or modified'?


Quit being so obtuse - in spite of your attempts to mitigate your prohibition stance by spouting maningless BS such as 'I don't blame them' and 'I havent any problem with somebody wanting assisted suicide'. Note the key element of these attempts at mollification. You don't have a problem with wanting suicide, you have a problem with committing suicide. You want the actual act banned, prohibited and presumably enforced with punishment, probably including incarceration. Great logic.

Don't you see any contradicition between saying, in effect, "I agree with the reasons for committing suicide, but disagree with allowing it to happen"? We have come full circle.

You want to infringe your views on other's lives. Only difference is now you agree that that reasons for wanting to commit suicide can be valid. Even in light of that, you still believe you should have the power to infringe on people's right to live, procreate and die on their own terms. All the rest is just a smoke screen to try and appease your critics. Guess what, we ain't buying it!

Once again, with reasonable safeguards in place to prevent a runaway slippery slope, why do you care? As I stated before, should you find yourself in such a terminal situation, feel free to suffer all the agony you like, right to the bitter 'natural' end. I certainly won't try to intervene.

Give the rest of us the right to make our own decision, and to follow through, without governmental interference. Deal?

 

Then why not ask for universal health care instead of denying assisted suicide? If u fought for U.H care then the 53 year old man would have been able to request his special though long-shot treatment without being denied. You cannot pre-empt abuse of a right by denying a right and still safe-guard the wishes and demands of a free society simply because YOU fear this right. You are playing lip-service to the individual right to choose and freedom of society while being willing to take their choices away, this is incompatible I hope you see that. You obviously have no faith in either your judicial system, doctors ethics, the patients requesting death with dignity nor the deep sense of right and wrong within the general population of the United States. You assume that the 'community' you refer to is so stupid that they cannot think through this issue themselves so its up to you to protect them right? Because that is the only way I can interpret this arrogant statement:

'I have to deny those wanting to die at present their wish, not for selfish reasons rather as I see it for the protection of the community."

Dictator oracle of the future is here to protect us from all we cannot foresee.

What Americans hopefully learned during the Bush years is that those who administer with a sense of having the moral high ground are a danger to all. I feel more comfortable with the legal system as it is even with its flaws than the world according to Brian.

 

Yes let's start with them. The Dutch have had this law for a very, very long time and the Dutch seem quite comfortable with it. As a population they are quite politically active when it comes to getting their voice heard, though very conservative as a general population (you would know what I mean if you left amsterdam and then visited the rest of the country) they still recognize individual rights and have set in place some radical solutions to many social problems even if it only serves a small population. This being the case why are you harping about a law that the majority of Dutch people are comfortable with?

 

I keep telling you my reasons.

So you agree that none of these legal documents are safe from modification? Then you agree that a 'death in dignity' bill is not a protected legal document therefore is open to modification leading to abuse.

No I have no problem with suicide, what I want banned are these types of 'medical care programs', whence my consistent mentioning of Eugenics.

I think you are on another Planet, I have clearly stated over the last 10 pages my position. Yet you have come to one conclusion I was driven by God and now I have a phobia towards the ast of suicide.

When Assholes start to get Bills such as this put forward, where an expansion has taken place, such as disabled people.

Then your stupidity is forcing yourself on me.

Why do I care I asked you these questions:

These were your answers:

That is why I care, emotional easily led people like yourself scare the shit out of me.

 

He did not want to die he wanted to live, you have this mindset that everybody who is told they have a terminal illness wishes to immediately end it all.

I just fear how it is going to end up.

I have already provided several examples of assisted suicide abuse and you still carry on with blind faith in this program. What is wrong with you why cant you admit there has been abuse and expansion over the last 10 years. The basic fact is that the general population are sheep and do as they are told, someone tells them assisted suicide is beneficial and persons such as myself who express concerns are explained away as conspiracy nuts.

You cant see the forest for the trees, that is very obvious seeing Eugenics started in America and ended up with the Nazi T4 program.

A legal system that oversaw the introduction of the Patriot Act, enjoy your world, unfortunately your in the majority so I have to endure your Utopia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

uke:

Have a good read from Google books:
The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia By Neil McGill Gorsuch: 7.1 The Dutch Experience "Virtually Abuse Free"

 

"Real Clear Politics" is not a news agency. Its a right wing echo chamber repeating th Faux "News" story.

 

ABC News then.............

Is that an acceptable news agency?

 

are you being serious?

ok. even in terms of religion i never understood what the argument was aside from a preference towards prolonging life. basically it is using technology to prolong life but not to end life. the ending part is when there is no possible way the person would recover and are in severe pain or fell as though they are being humiliated by being hooked up to a machine etc. Now there does exist the remote possibility (joke) that you are reading too much into this.

 

I KNOW HE DIDN'T WANT TO DIE!! I am saying why not advocate U.H.C so he wouldn't have to have been denied treatment instead of YOU in this thread advocating the denial of assisted suicide. I know you fear how this is going to end up but instead of focusing on having a properly enforced law you are seem to think having the law in place itself is enough to lead to your worse fears and that seem a tad bit paranoid.

The general population are sheep but you are free and intelligent and knows what's best for the rest of the herd? So I guess you are the sheep herder

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again the examples you outlined didn't show any abuse, as a matter of fact the 53 year old man who wanted treatement was granted that treatment eventually so it would seem that the system worked to protect his wishes and the news covered the story. So why do you fear the system when the checks and balances seem to have worked in his situation?

Dont be a patronizing you infant by telling me I can't see the forest from the trees, it is you who have skewed history by linking eugenics and the nazi regime as if it is a natural extension and outcome of eugenics and its not. Nazi germany my obtuse friend was an extreme, twisted fascist State that hardly mirrors what is possible in most democracies. Fascism can happen which is why populations in a free society have to be ever vigilant but you assume that this is not possible so you, the sheep herder who knows all like moses has to protect society from themselves and a system you find inherently corrupt. George Bush had the patriot act and now we are rid of mr. Bush and the new government elected by the people has modified the patriot act. Now this is a sign of a system that can alter and fix itself. Why do you have so little faith in this system that seems to have worked even given the examples you gave?

All your book shows is that the author is against assisted suicide and euthanasia. He isn't unbiased on the issue, he like yourself would make it criminal. And the book isn't about Holland but asssisted suicide/euthanasia everywhere and its an attack on the idea fundamentally which doesn't reflect the Holland where THE MAJORITY of Dutch people, medical practitiones and legislatures support euthanasia and assisted suicide, fine tuning a law is not the same as denying the law outright which is what you advocate and what the author advocates. The Future of Assited Suicide by Gorush is not an objective piece of work In princeton's review they say

"After devoting a chapter to each of these issues, Gorsuch constructs, explains, and tests out his principle of the inviolability of human life as an argument against legalization of PAS. He also suggests questions about the constitutionality of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act" He wrote the book to support his position so its not an unbiased exploration."

They go on to add that

"its not that the problems of the ll or gravely ill people are easy to solve, or even that some policy permitting physician assistance is an appropriate answer to their problems. It is just that a book about public policies that affect dying in America ought to be anchored more in an effort to address the problems of people than of legal doctrine or philosophy. Gorsuch is not insensitive. But his book is too abstracted from the realities of the complex problems that his argument is meant to address. " Kind of like you.

But this is probably the most glaring critique of all

"But the primary weakness of the book is that its approach, while not insensitive at all, is nonetheless too detached from the realities to which its ideas are meant to apply. THE FUTURE OF ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA is too abstracted from context. Despite its occasional references to particular cases and to the problems of a few categories of people with end-of-life care issues, Gorsuch’s book is more focused on solving an interesting doctrinal and philosophical problem than on solving the problem of dying people in need of physicians’ assistance. After all is said and done, we are given a significant and fundamentally conservative argument that may justify criminalizing PAS and prohibiting “suicidal” decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment. But that policy leaves us with an unfortunately large group of people for whom there is no help – those who are terminally or grievously ill, suffering great anguish and pain not adequately managed by the healthcare system, and desirous, for whatever reason, of giving up the struggle against death."


You told me to 'have a good read' perhaps you should learn to think through the information you recieve, and read between the lines of what you read.

 

What part of 'it ended up' dont youy connect with?