Euthanasia in New Zealand

[SassyLady]

Glad I'm not living in New Zealand.

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/12/26/new-zealand-okays-euthanasia-for-covid-patients/

Doctors get $1,000 plus expenses from government for every euthanasia they perform. Ths question is will covid patients be euthanized?

[fj1200]

Glad I'm not living in New Zealand.

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/12/26/new-zealand-okays-euthanasia-for-covid-patients/

Doctors get $1,000 plus expenses from government for every euthanasia they perform. Ths question is will covid patients be euthanized?

No.


Euthanasia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia) became legal in New Zealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) when the End of Life Choice Act 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Life_Choice_Act_2019) took full effect on 7 November 2021. It is illegal to "aid and abet suicide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide)" under Section 179 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_Act_1961).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-1) The clauses of this act make it an offence to "incite, procure or counsel" and "aid and abet" someone else to commit suicide, regardless of whether a suicide attempt is made or not. Section 179 covers both coercion to undertake assisted suicide and true suicide, such as that caused by bullying. This will not change under the End of Life Choices Act 2019, which has provisions on coercion of terminally ill people.The controversial book The Peaceful Pill Handbook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peaceful_Pill_Handbook) describing how to perform euthanasia was initially banned in New Zealand. Since May 2008 it has been allowed for sale to readers over eighteen years of age, if it is sealed and an indication of the censorship classification is displayed. In addition, author Philip Nitschke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Nitschke) excised a section that dealt specifically with methods of suicide, which might otherwise have fallen afoul of Section 179.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-2)
The End of Life Choice Bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Life_Choice_Bill) passed in parliament 69–51 in November 2019.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-Henry_Cooke-3) The matter was decided at a binding referendum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_euthanasia_referendum) held alongside the 2020 general election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_general_election), with the electorate voting in favour of legalisation.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-:0-4) The legislation took effect one year after the official declaration of the referendum result, on 7 November 2021.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-5)[6]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-6)

The law has been on the books for two years.

[SassyLady]

No.



The law has been on the books for two years.

From the article.


Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can die by euthanasia if doctors decide they might not survive, the New Zealand government has declared.

The Ministry of Health confirmed that a right to a lethal injection under a new euthanasia law could extend to patients who were either dying from the coronavirus or suffering unbearably from its consequences.

It permits both euthanasia and assisted suicide for adults suffering from an illness which would be terminal within six months, or who were in an advanced state of irreversible physical decline or who were suffering unbearably.

[fj1200]

From the article.

I know what it says because I read it. I also did some more research and decided that the commenter was purposefully inflammatory. But that's the norm around covid these days.

[SassyLady]

I know what it says because I read it. I also did some more research and decided that the commenter was purposefully inflammatory. But that's the norm around covid these days.

So, anything of concern about covid not put forth by your sources is considered inflammatory? 🤔

[revelarts]

Euthanasia is an option of covid patients in New Zealand.
from the OP
"“In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying”."
https://www.planet-today.com/2022/01/new-zealand-now-paying-euthanasia.html


the Reuters "debunk"
“Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Ministry cannot make definitive statements about who is eligible. In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying.”
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2478731943178/fact-check-new-zealand-has-not-approved-euthanasia-specifically-for-covid-19-patients



Sadly it appears to be true, the "debunkers" just don't like the way it's said.

Some Covid patients are eligible for a contract killings, and the NZ gov't will "reimbursement" the doctors for the contract killing.

[fj1200]

So, anything of concern about covid not put forth by your sources is considered inflammatory? 🤔

Inflammatory rhetoric is inflammatory. Try again this time without reference to "my sources." :)

Seems that anything that existed before and now has covid attached to it gets ratcheted up the fear ladder.


Sadly it appears to be true, the "debunkers" just don't like the way it's said.

Some Covid patients are eligible for a contract killings, and the NZ gov't will "reimbursement" the doctors for the contract killing.


... purposefully inflammatory. But that's the norm around covid these days.

Seems to me the discussion should be around euthanasia laws in NZ or elsewhere and not just hair-on-fire covid references.

[revelarts]

Inflammatory rhetoric is inflammatory. Try again this time without reference to "my sources." :)
Seems that anything that existed before and now has covid attached to it gets ratcheted up the fear ladder.
Seems to me the discussion should be around euthanasia laws in NZ or elsewhere and not just hair-on-fire covid references.

From time to time I call Abortion, 'killing a child' or murder as well. that may be "inflammatory" to some but it's true.

Same here. people's hair should be on fire. with abortion and euthanasia, the opposite ends of the same 2 headed snake.
the fact that it can be used on covid patients is a legitimate expression of the problem as any other.
And again hair should be on fire when the gov't that claims to "protect" people pays people to kill them.



BTW
contract killing
noun
'a murder carried out on agreement with a hired killer'
https://www.definitions.net/definition/contract+killing

[fj1200]

From time to time I call Abortion, 'killing a child' or murder as well. that may be "inflammatory" to some but it's true.

Same here. people's hair should be on fire. with abortion and euthanasia, the opposite ends of the same 2 headed snake.
the fact that it can be used on covid patients is a legitimate expression of the problem as any other.
And again hair should be on fire when the gov't that claims to "protect" people pays people to kill them.



BTW
contract killing
noun
'a murder carried out on agreement with a hired killer'
https://www.definitions.net/definition/contract+killing

Point of order; they call it the End of Choice Life Act. There is a distinct difference between doctor assisted suicide and contract killing as you're trying to portray it. And I agree iwth you on abortion but the issue at hand is not "using it on covid patients" it's allowing covid patients to choose assisted dying.

[SassyLady]

Point of order; they call it the End of Choice Life Act. There is a distinct difference between doctor assisted suicide and contract killing as you're trying to portray it. And I agree iwth you on abortion but the issue at hand is not "using it on covid patients" it's allowing covid patients to choose assisted dying.
The issue is that covid patients can fall under the category of suffering unbearably. Therefore, euthanasia can be used for covid patients which you denied.

[fj1200]

The issue is that covid patients can fall under the category of suffering unbearably. Therefore, euthanasia can be used for covid patients which you denied.

I didn't deny anything; It's more appropriately called assisted dying in NZ. And as I understand covid patients can suffer unbearably and in some cases it may be terminal. I'm not sure of your position on New Zealand's law prior to the attachment of covid.

[SassyLady]

I didn't deny anything; It's more appropriately called assisted dying in NZ. And as I understand covid patients can suffer unbearably and in some cases it may be terminal. I'm not sure of your position on New Zealand's law prior to the attachment of covid.

I'm for it as long as individual is cognizant enough to consent with non related witnesses for the consent. Never if it's a 2nd or 3rd party making the decision (such as medical/insurance bureaucrats or family members).

Assisted dying is just a different terminology (like calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant). It's still euthanasia if a doctor is administering the meds That's why it was added to assisted suicide. The medical professional gets paid by the government to do it. The patient is not doing the injection.

[fj1200]

I'm for it as long as individual is cognizant enough to consent with non related witnesses for the consent. Never if it's a 2nd or 3rd party making the decision (such as medical/insurance bureaucrats or family members).

Assisted dying is just a different terminology (like calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant). It's still euthanasia if a doctor is administering the meds That's why it was added to assisted suicide. The medical professional gets paid by the government to do it. The patient is not doing the injection.

Then it seems nothing substantive has changed from a week ago. Someone just added covid to a list. No big deal.

[SassyLady]

Then it seems nothing substantive has changed from a week ago. Someone just added covid to a list. No big deal.

Yep. The legislation took effect in November 2021 so connecting covid now is appropriate timing I would think.

[revelarts]

I didn't deny anything; It's more appropriately called assisted dying in NZ. And as I understand covid patients can suffer unbearably and in some cases it may be terminal. I'm not sure of your position on New Zealand's law prior to the attachment of covid.

why is it "more appropriately called assisted dying".
what's appropriate about it?
Calling it assisted suicide and contract killing seems just as "appropriate" to me.



...Someone just added covid to a list. No big deal.


I'm Not sure why adding an extra illness to the list of those eligible for legal contract killing is "NO BIG DEAL".
killing people is NO BIG DEAL? really?
I always thought excuses for killing people, or even hurting people had to be a pretty big deal.
When did adding excuses for legally killing folks become no big deal exactly?

[Gunny]

why is it "more appropriately called assisted dying".
what's appropriate about it?
Calling it assisted suicide and contract killing seems just as "appropriate" to me.



I'm Not sure why adding an extra illness to the list of those eligible for legal contract killing is "NO BIG DEAL".
killing people is NO BIG DEAL? really?
I always thought excuses for killing people, or even hurting people had to be a pretty big deal.
When did adding excuses for legally killing folks become no big deal exactly?

Semantics.

I hate to be consistent here, but shouldn't it be the individual's choice, regardless the label? That's from a legal point. You're making someone else's choice.

Ethically, I can honestly say I have conflicting opinions. Having watched a few close relatives die drawn-out, long suffering deaths with zero chance of survival, I can't honestly cannot deny someone that choice.

For myself, due to my religion, I can only state what my grandmother told me: "I don't know why the Good Lord has chosen this fate for me, I guess it's just another test and I have it to do."

[fj1200]

why is it "more appropriately called assisted dying".
what's appropriate about it?
Calling it assisted suicide and contract killing seems just as "appropriate" to me.



I'm Not sure why adding an extra illness to the list of those eligible for legal contract killing is "NO BIG DEAL".
killing people is NO BIG DEAL? really?
I always thought excuses for killing people, or even hurting people had to be a pretty big deal.
When did adding excuses for legally killing folks become no big deal exactly?

I didn't realize the point of this thread was to debate one's views on euthanasia. That's a different discussion than the one raised in the OP I think.

But you're "contract killing" line is off the mark as it relates here because that's not how it works.

[Gunny]

I didn't realize the point of this thread was to debate one's views on euthanasia. That's a different discussion than the one raised in the OP I think.

But you're "contract killing" line is off the mark as it relates here because that's not how it works.?

What then?

[fj1200]

?

What then?

This was the question asked.


Ths question is will covid patients be euthanized?




Which I took to mean are they just going to start with the systematic killing of covid patients? /hyberbole

[Gunny]

This was the question asked.






Which I took to mean are they just going to start with the systematic killing of covid patients? /hyberboleAh. My response is to the subject line. I see your point.

[revelarts]

Canda's contribution

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPr_rUvWUAUvo7F?format=jpg&name=900x900


I'm sure it's "no big deal"


I mean Stalin Did it so it must be A-OK to kill the political disid..Cough- I Mean the "Mentally Ill"

Actually the Germans started their 'final solution' this way, the Mentally ill and the handicapped were the 1st to go.
Can't have any 'weak minded' clouding up the Aryan gene pool & draining resources from the State.
But I'm sure this is TOTALLY different.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Canda's contribution

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPr_rUvWUAUvo7F?format=jpg&name=900x900


I'm sure it's "no big deal"


I mean Stalin Did it so it must be A-OK to kill the political disid..Cough- I Mean the "Mentally Ill"

Actually the Germans started their 'final solution' this way, the Mentally ill and the handicapped were the 1st to go.
Can't have any 'weak minded' clouding up the Aryan gene pool & draining resources from the State.
But I'm sure this is TOTALLY different.

What when the --mentally ill-- will be determined by a certain political party. As we now already see the dems far, far ahead of the game on that--do we not?
Certainly be easy to see how that could be used- "to eliminate certain opposition", would it not.???
I mean, Hitler caught on to that and put it to fantastic use to gain dominate power and then caused the deaths of millions..
Darest one say, but not here, never here and not our precious dems!- :laugh:
As if they are the gods that they so very cleverly pretend to be be...
God forbid, that one even dare to consider questioning those paragons of virtues and infinite kindness... eh?--Tyr

[fj1200]

Ths question is will covid patients be euthanized?

I wonder if any were. :unsure:

[jimnyc]

I thought euthanasia was basically "not a choice" like suicide by decision? Here's what I found out about the differences, if it applies here at all or not. Because honestly, after I read the article it did sound like there was some form of option to use euthanasia by the doctors choice and not the patients choice. But that's likely me basing that on what I assumed euthanasia was to be defined as. I thought voluntarily doing so was simply suicide, but I see I was incorrect.

I don't like any sounds of "euthanasia" and adding ANY incentive for a doctor is insanity.... who knows what people are capable of for a measly $1k

On the other hand, if someone has a terminal illness, and is found to be of sound mind, and would rather die at a certain time than suffer and die later... then I would never judge such a person.

---

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Euthanasia may be voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted with consent. Voluntary euthanasia is currently legal in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and New Zealand. It is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont.

Non-voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent due to their current health condition. In this situation, the decision is made by another appropriate person, on behalf of the individual, based on their quality of life.

Involuntary: When euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. This is called murder, as it’s often against the person’s will.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide

[Gunny]

I thought euthanasia was basically "not a choice" like suicide by decision? Here's what I found out about the differences, if it applies here at all or not. Because honestly, after I read the article it did sound like there was some form of option to use euthanasia by the doctors choice and not the patients choice. But that's likely me basing that on what I assumed euthanasia was to be defined as. I thought voluntarily doing so was simply suicide, but I see I was incorrect.

I don't like any sounds of "euthanasia" and adding ANY incentive for a doctor is insanity.... who knows what people are capable of for a measly $1k

On the other hand, if someone has a terminal illness, and is found to be of sound mind, and would rather die at a certain time than suffer and die later... then I would never judge such a person.

---

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Euthanasia may be voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted with consent. Voluntary euthanasia is currently legal in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and New Zealand. It is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont.

Non-voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent due to their current health condition. In this situation, the decision is made by another appropriate person, on behalf of the individual, based on their quality of life.

Involuntary: When euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. This is called murder, as it’s often against the person’s will.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#euthanasia-and-assisted-suicideI love the we we can wordsmith killing someone into sounding a lot cleaner than what it is.

That word and the left's slippery slope give me an uneasy feeling.

[jimnyc]

I love the we we can wordsmith killing someone into sounding a lot cleaner than what it is.

That word and the left's slippery slope give me an uneasy feeling.

"die with dignity" - "end of life care" and all kinds of sweet names. And even a "prescription" is given to do the deed.

Then add in monetary incentive!

But yeah, euthanasia and suicide aren't very clean. Then again I have seen people suffer the worst suffering prior to death. Like my Aunt in the early 80's who died of bone cancer, and they even screwed a square cage into her skull for various support and what not. Horrible. And she was in pain for a long long time before she finally passed away. I would never mention, offer, solicit or do anything around that subject with such a person - but if they wanted to end their own suffering, knowing they will be dead quite soon anyway, then I would never judge them.

But imagine if you found out that a doctor had convinced granny to want to end her life - because he/she thought they may ultimately die from covid?

These doctors, here or there, better have 5,000% irrefutable proof of impending death.

[fj1200]

I thought euthanasia was basically "not a choice" like suicide by decision? Here's what I found out about the differences, if it applies here at all or not. Because honestly, after I read the article it did sound like there was some form of option to use euthanasia by the doctors choice and not the patients choice. But that's likely me basing that on what I assumed euthanasia was to be defined as. I thought voluntarily doing so was simply suicide, but I see I was incorrect.

I don't like any sounds of "euthanasia" and adding ANY incentive for a doctor is insanity.... who knows what people are capable of for a measly $1k

On the other hand, if someone has a terminal illness, and is found to be of sound mind, and would rather die at a certain time than suffer and die later... then I would never judge such a person.

---

I think that is the point of the laws surrounding the issue. Hopefully to create a framework that the decision can be made in to avoid abuse. I don't think the doctors are the ones to worry about, I think it's the relatives. Just as some might want mom or dad to kick the bucket some demand that Medicare pay for excess keep-mom-alive procedures.

[Gunny]

"die with dignity" - "end of life care" and all kinds of sweet names. And even a "prescription" is given to do the deed.

Then add in monetary incentive!

But yeah, euthanasia and suicide aren't very clean. Then again I have seen people suffer the worst suffering prior to death. Like my Aunt in the early 80's who died of bone cancer, and they even screwed a square cage into her skull for various support and what not. Horrible. And she was in pain for a long long time before she finally passed away. I would never mention, offer, solicit or do anything around that subject with such a person - but if they wanted to end their own suffering, knowing they will be dead quite soon anyway, then I would never judge them.

But imagine if you found out that a doctor had convinced granny to want to end her life - because he/she thought they may ultimately die from covid?

These doctors, here or there, better have 5,000% irrefutable proof of impending death.


I think that is the point of the laws surrounding the issue. Hopefully to create a framework that the decision can be made in to avoid abuse. I don't think the doctors are the ones to worry about, I think it's the relatives. Just as some might want mom or dad to kick the bucket some demand that Medicare pay for excess keep-mom-alive procedures.Despite the "why's and wherefor's", it isn't the individual circumstances that concerns me. Despite any altruistic reasoning, I don't trust a society that has proven time and again it can't handle and/or will dodge responsible behavior to get comfortable with the idea that it is okay to euthanize.

When put together with the left's proven determination to ride a slippery slope into the pits of Hell on any and all issues of morality, I don't think wondering "What's next?" is out of line. The indigent? From the sounds of the current wokesters and left, white people and conservatives would certainly be eligible.

[SassyLady]

If I remember it only takes 2 physicians to determine it's a terminal illness.

My SIL had terminal cancer in 2020. Couple months to live. Get your affairs in order. Started talking fenbendazole. Six months later she has no cancer. Still cancer free. What if she had been classified as eligible? She probably would have opted for it if it were legal here. No doctors told her to try fenbendazole. I have several friends using it now and no sign of cancer.

The medical community doesn't want to people to be cured. Would probably close down an extremely profitable income stream for thousands of organizations who profit off cancer.

Now, there will be euthansia businesses everywhere is legal.

[fj1200]

Despite the "why's and wherefor's", it isn't the individual circumstances that concerns me. Despite any altruistic reasoning, I don't trust a society that has proven time and again it can't handle and/or will dodge responsible behavior to get comfortable with the idea that it is okay to euthanize.

When put together with the left's proven determination to ride a slippery slope into the pits of Hell on any and all issues of morality, I don't think wondering "What's next?" is out of line. The indigent? From the sounds of the current wokesters and left, white people and conservatives would certainly be eligible.

I'm not worried about that. Scare tactics IMO.

[Gunny]

I'm not worried about that. Scare tactics IMO.Now when have you known me to go around using (anyone's) scare tactics?:slap:

I sat here and came to that possible conclusion all on my lonesome. Too much of what is reality today was somebody's "scare tactics" and would never happen, wasn't worth worrying about when I was younger. You couldn't have sold me on a lot of what I'm seeing today (esp the past 5-6 years) 40 years ago. But here it is.

Note I did not say it is "the" conclusion and "will" happen. I'm just not ruling it out.

[fj1200]

Now when have you known me to go around using (anyone's) scare tactics?:slap:

I sat here and came to that possible conclusion all on my lonesome. Too much of what is reality today was somebody's "scare tactics" and would never happen, wasn't worth worrying about when I was younger. You couldn't have sold me on a lot of what I'm seeing today (esp the past 5-6 years) 40 years ago. But here it is.

Note I did not say it is "the" conclusion and "will" happen. I'm just not ruling it out.

It was more of a general comment and not meant specifically to you. I just happened to say it while we were chatting.

[Gunny]

It was more of a general comment and not meant specifically to you. I just happened to say it while we were chatting.Food for thought:

The video is rather long and tedious. I just coincidentally had it on when I was cleaning the other day for some background noise. Don't ask how that works in a film with no dialogue :) One of the things that caught my attention is the size of this place. I've lived in smaller towns.

This place was closed/shut down/liberated only 14 years before I was born. No, I am not Jewish and I take a lot of their propaganda with a grain of salt. There is however no denying that this happened (unless you are Ilhan Omar and/or her ilk).

People did this to other people. Those people were first elected to office by the people for promises of a better life. Even those unaware of what was going on in these camps still turned a blind eye to the demonization of Jews and their treatment so Hitler and the State had an enemy to focus on.

It is incomprehensible to most of us that this could happen, and/or that man could do this to man. Just to add, Stalin's BS in Russia rivaled Hitler's in every way, so it isn't a one-off.

In the name of the betterment of the State, the people, science, expedience, justice. So I'm not going to say it can't happen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH8dGQ2jP5k

[revelarts]

CANADA will not be outdone.
‘Dystopian’: Canada to legalise euthanasia for drug addicts
Canada is set to legalise euthanasia for drug addicts. The government will pass legislation in March which will mean people with substance abuse issues can access assisted suicide even if they have no physical ailments.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12651003/Canada-legalize-medically-assisted-dying-addicted-drugs.html
https://science.slashdot.org/story/23/10/20/0041251/canada-will-legalize-medically-assisted-dying-for-people-addicted-to-drugs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaEj6MqpWtU


Anybody really still questioned that "slippery slope" thing?

[Gunny]

CANADA will not be outdone.
‘Dystopian’: Canada to legalise euthanasia for drug addicts
Canada is set to legalise euthanasia for drug addicts. The government will pass legislation in March which will mean people with substance abuse issues can access assisted suicide even if they have no physical ailments.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12651003/Canada-legalize-medically-assisted-dying-addicted-drugs.html
https://science.slashdot.org/story/23/10/20/0041251/canada-will-legalize-medically-assisted-dying-for-people-addicted-to-drugs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaEj6MqpWtU


Anybody really still questioned that "slippery slope" thing?Conflicting morals?

On one hand, suicide is a violation of Christian morality.

On the other, the Rights of an individual who no longer wishes to live. While I do consider current society has a lot do with people losing their desire to live even against the primal instinct to survive, the fact is, how can you force someone to want to live? Some people just don't.

Then you have those in prison doing life without parole clinging to ever second. Go figure.

Should the state force people to live?

[revelarts]

Should the state force people to live?

not to go down a deep & winding road.
I think the question here is,

Should the state be a hired contract killer if people want to die?

[Gunny]

not to go down a deep & winding road.
I think the question here is,

Should the state be a hire contract killer if people want to die?

Facilitator would be a better term.

Good question. I personally do not believe it is a good idea to get comfortable with notion of the state facilitating "suicide".

[revelarts]

Facilitator would be a better term.

Good question. I personally do not believe it is a good idea to get comfortable with notion of the state facilitating "suicide".

Facilitator is a great term for the job in some British sci-fi movie about this crap.

"Heeellooo, you arrre Mr Junkey I presume"
"Yes. that's right."
"AH Wonderful, I'm Mr Nekros your Facilitator. You are ready for your procedure correct?"
"well actually I've been having 2nd thoughts.. and... well.."
"Nonsense, as your professional Facilitator I can help walk your through such pish-posh & rubbish, it happens all the time... let me help you get comfortable..."


But gunny Here's the other thing, It would ruin the word for all other uses.
People in other fields would have to keep saying .."no no not THAT kind of Facilitator".


Contract Killer is strait forward, plan and honest.
and only puts a slightly less harsh spin on the rest of that professions.

[Gunny]

Facilitator is a great term for the job in some British sci-fi movie about this crap.

"Heeellooo, you arrre Mr Junkey I presume"
"Yes. that's right."
"AH Wonderful, I'm Mr Nekros your Facilitator. You are ready for your procedure correct?"
"well actually I've been having 2nd thoughts.. and... well.."
"Nonsense, as your professional Facilitator I can help walk your through such pish-posh & rubbish, it happens all the time... let me help you get comfortable..."


But gunny Here's the other thing, It would ruin the word for all other uses.
People in other fields would have to keep saying .."no no not THAT kind of Facilitator".


Contract Killer is strait forward, plan and honest.
and only puts a slightly less harsh spin on the rest of that professions.Not sure one could do more harm to the word than has already been done. I use it negatively. Enabler is just as bad.

The point is, there's this long list of unintended consequences that tends to follow well meaning government intentions. We can at least agree that we can see something like this morphing into something else and not anything good. Hey. Biden tried to pay off student loans with the Patriot Act, so not much is off the table in my mind when those dimwits start what they call thinking.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-uJZ0hWYAA5y3g?format=jpg&name=small

[revelarts]

2018


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEfUOGjX0AEUGdv?format=jpg&name=small

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/child-euthanasia-without-parent-approval-pushed-for-canada/

[RoccoR]

RE: Euthanasia in New Zealand (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?75222-Euthanasia-in-New-Zealand&p=1022228#post1022228)
SUBTOPIC: Morality and Reality
※→ et al,

• This is, almost of the time, a topic dominated by the Religious influences relative to the orchestrated death (the taking of a life).

• The opposing view, usually in the minority, is the advocation voluntary assisted death.

Considerations oppising the dogmatic and compliance oriented religious teaching and ritualistic views normally associated with the Abrahamic Religions.


The dogmatic and compliance view would discount further unnecessary agony enduring in the case of prolonged or terminal illness;
The dogmatic and compliance view would disregard the chance of an unreasonable prediction of a discovery of a cure within the lifetime of the ill;
The dogmatic and compliance view would discount the suffering and burden the terminally ill extends to care givers, family and friends;4
The dogmatic and compliance view would disregard expressed by the terminal patient wish to be terminated. including the quality of life issue.

And yet, there are still more practical reasons considering infant and child development issues. And then there is the issue of rape and incesst. And yet there will be more that we have not thought yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Gunny]

2018


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEfUOGjX0AEUGdv?format=jpg&name=small

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/child-euthanasia-without-parent-approval-pushed-for-canada/




Question(s):

Taking this at face value, without all the possible things that can go wrong, NZ and Canada and probably others have legalized euthanasia, which boils down to assisted suicide. Other than moral objection, why not?

I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head "why" to consider it. I've watched people die from cancer and it is an ugly way to go. Being locked in a cage for life without parole and all means or appeal exhausted also comes to mind. Not to mention the State already has the right to kill you for certain crimes. Abortion is legal.

I've often wondered who exactly we are keeping these people alive for. Them? Or us?

[SassyLady]

I think it's more about how gets to make the decision to end your life.

[Gunny]

I think it's more about how gets to make the decision to end your life.That is still a debate with no end in sight as far as pulling the plug goes, isn't it? It's not illegal in the US to do it.

One would think that euthanasia would have to be requested beforehand by the individual. This thread's pretty old. If I have time, I'll try and read it again.

[SassyLady]

That is still a debate with no end in sight as far as pulling the plug goes, isn't it? It's not illegal in the US to do it.

One would think that euthanasia would have to be requested beforehand by the individual. This thread's pretty old. If I have time, I'll try and read it again.

I agree that an individual should have the right to end their life when they decide. After due diligence and not because the "state" or "caretaker" decides.

[revelarts]

Question(s):
I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head "why" to consider it. I've watched people die from cancer and it is an ugly way to go. Being locked in a cage for life without parole and all means or appeal exhausted also comes to mind. Not to mention the State already has the right to kill you for certain crimes. Abortion is legal.

I've often wondered who exactly we are keeping these people alive for. Them? Or us?

Abortion is legal but it should not be. It's murder.
State already has the right to kill you for certain crimes. yes.
Being sick or in some kind of pain is not a crime.

Ok
1st no one is pro suffering.
2nd letting people die naturally is not a problem. Helping people die is killing people, and is wrong.
3rd Life is a gift from God and we have to answer to Him for it, & how we use it. So, we don’t have the freedom to take our lives it’s not completely ours to take.

But For someone who does not believe God has granted life as a gift.
Then OK sure, do whatever you can get away with, in any context, there are no real rules.

So the very real question is where do ANY rights or moral obligations come from?
All our laws are just flexible social contracts, ANYthing goes.
We can kill others in the community for any number of reasons. For the greater good, whatever that is today.. or not.
Forced euthanasia of the old or infirm or doctors just helping the suffering, there are no real boundaries just people's opinions.
There are not really any right or wrongs... or "rights".
Whatever the leaders or the majority wants.
The 'rights' are just what the group says it is TODAY.

People act like "everyone knows" that killing people is wrong.
Some people today can't even bring themselves to say what men or women are.
That's a physical reality.

I believe morals are an objective reality, but most people do not.
But people should know this practically.
If doctors are turned from people only focused on restoring health & on saving people from death, to people who "help" people die.
Any sane person has to at least consider WHICH ONE the doctor at your bedside is trying to do to you. For your own good or the good of the community.
If the state is turned from an instrument to PROTECT ALL People's lives, and personal freedoms (unless they've committed certain crimes).
To the state granting licenses for people kill to others for various reasons. Then the only questions is who gets to choose the reasons.
Just KNOW it may not be you, or people "like you".