Should A Dead Person Be Allowed To Sue For The Right To Die?


wizard
#1
... gloria taylor who sued to make it legal for the right to a doctor-assisted suicide has died. however, for some reason the government is allowing her lawsuit to proceed -- even though she's dead ...

... story HERE ...

... should taylor's petition be allowed to continue even though she's no longer in need of a doctor-assisted suicide? i see it as a perversion of justice to allow a dead person to sue for anything ...

... any comments on this?
 
damngrumpy
+1
#2
Yes and for one really good reason, in some areas the dead people still vote
and have done for decades.
 
taxslave
+3
#3
Aside from the legal ramifications of this case on living people there are a great many bureaucraps and liars still wanting to make much money off the case.
 
wizard
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Aside from the legal ramifications of this case on living people there are a great many bureaucraps and liars still wanting to make much money off the case.

... precisely. it's obviously a good money maker for the lawyers so why not keep the machine rolling on, petitioner or no petitioner ...
 
In Between Man
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Aside from the legal ramifications of this case on living people there are a great many bureaucraps and liars still wanting to make much money off the case.

And I think it also goes a little deeper than that too. Some of these folks probably agree with legal suicide and want to further this cause because they believe it's "progress".
 
WLDB
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Yes and for one really good reason, in some areas the dead people still vote
and have done for decades.

My grandmother got a voting card for my grandfather in the 1997 election. Thing is he died in 1993. She corrected them though.

Not sure how I feel about this case. It can still have effects on living people so it should probably still go forward but with a living plaintiff.
 
B00Mer
#7
Question, is the dead persons estate sueing and any monitary gain goes to the family.. why not. The estate would be like a corporation at that point, no???
 
TenPenny
+3
#8
The legal case is to establish a right, there's no reason to not let it go ahead.
 
JLM
#9
If he's up to it!
 
taxslave
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

And I think it also goes a little deeper than that too. Some of these folks probably agree with legal suicide and want to further this cause because they believe it's "progress".

It is progress when they win. It will be one more small victory of personal rights VS state control.
 
In Between Man
-1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It is progress when they win. It will be one more small victory of personal rights VS state control.

And just look at all the wonderful things "progress" has given us so far. God's been kicked out of the public schools, we have a modern-day genocide of the unborn, and the radical gay agenda being crammed down our throats.

♪ "And I think to myself... what a wonderful world...." ♪
 
TenPenny
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

And just look at all the wonderful things "progress" has given us so far. God's been kicked out of the public schools

Yes, that's progress, I agree.

Kids saying the Lords Prayer every morning was ridiculous.
 
taxslave
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

And just look at all the wonderful things "progress" has given us so far. God's been kicked out of the public schools, we have a modern-day genocide of the unborn, and the radical gay agenda being crammed down our throats.

♪ "And I think to myself... what a wonderful world...." ♪

It would appear that you are a large part of the PROBLEM.
Please show us where anyone is preventing you from believing in your myth or forcing you to marry a gay man.
 
TenPenny
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

the radical gay agenda being crammed down our throats.

You seem to be fixated on something being crammed down your throat, and it's always in connection with gay men.

I find that quite amusing, it's a grand example of a freudian slip.
 
In Between Man
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Yes, that's progress, I agree.

Kids saying the Lords Prayer every morning was ridiculous.

It's not just reciting prayer, the point is that the bible use to have a place of honor in our society, and once that changed we started a downward spiral.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It would appear that you are a large part of the PROBLEM.
Please show us where anyone is preventing you from believing in your myth or forcing you to marry a gay man.

Actually God is the problem for the anti-God crowd friend. He's the one that defined marriage, and I'm pretty sure the Lord's been around a lot longer than myself. So if you have a problem with "progress" being "held back", then your beef is with your Creator.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You seem to be fixated on something being crammed down your throat, and it's always in connection with gay men.

I find that quite amusing, it's a grand example of a freudian slip.

Whenever you would like to have a serious discussion I'll be waiting. (And I would personally love it, but you seem to be more interested in cracks and insults.)
Last edited by In Between Man; Oct 6th, 2012 at 09:49 PM..
 
JLM
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Kids saying the Lords Prayer every morning was ridiculous.

Why?
 
PoliticalNick
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

And just look at all the wonderful things "progress" has given us so far. God's been kicked out of the public schools, we have a modern-day genocide of the unborn, and the radical gay agenda being crammed down our throats.

♪ "And I think to myself... what a wonderful world...." ♪

As opposed to how it used to be...God being crammed down our throats, old-school genocide of the unborn, and gays being kicked out of school! My my how things have gone downhill!
 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

As opposed to how it used to be...God being crammed down our throats, old-school genocide of the unborn, and gays being kicked out of school! My my how things have gone downhill!

Yes and no. We have more tolerance today for some members of society, the homosexual, the mentally ill, just to list a couple!
 
PoliticalNick
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

It's not just reciting prayer, the point is that the bible use to have a place of honor in our society, and once that changed we started a downward spiral.

It is a bunch of short stories from hundreds of years after the fact without any hard evidence or even anecdotal evidence it holds any true words at all. Why should we honor such a book? Might as well honor Archie's Digest. It might help you get through life but I don't need it and I shouldn't have it forced upon me, especially at an early age in a public school.



Quote:

Actually God is the problem for the anti-God crowd friend. He's the one that defined marriage, and I'm pretty sure the Lord's been around a lot longer than myself. So if you have a problem with "progress" being "held back", then your beef is with your Creator.

Actually there was no definition of marriage until the God Squad required the govt to make one so as to make life difficult enough for all the homos to repent and see the straight light. I'm sure I have been around a lot longer than you too so maybe you should listen to me. He is not my creator, I had 2, their names are Paul & Kate, they are living, tangible entities. You might believe some old dude in the clouds made you but it just ain't true....your parents had sex is what really happened!

Just an FYI...I am not anti-god as you put it. I don't believe in him/her/it myself but if you need to believe to get you through the day without killing yourself or someone else then I am pro-god. Whatever it takes for you to be happy with you is just fine with me.

On the topic of the OP....

I believe the case is being allowed to move forward to establish a precedent upon which any further case would rest. I also believe the crown may see it as a cheaper alternative than starting from scratch on another case disputing the same question. I think we need this issue put to bed sooner than later and setting the precedent (even over a dead guy) will obviously move it toward a conclusion.
 
SLM
+5
#20  Top Rated Post
Redundancy aside, this is about opening up options available to people who are at the end of their life and are suffering from incurable diseases. So while the initial challenger is now deceased, the challenge itself if both pertinent to all and very much alive.
 
TenPenny
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Why?

Why? Because religion is not something that should be imposed by the government, that's why.
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Why? Because religion is not something that should be imposed by the government, that's why.

I suppose, if reciting the Lord's Prayer in school is having religion imposed upon us! Actually I think it just taught to be thankful for what we have. Kids today lack that.
 
TenPenny
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I suppose, if reciting the Lord's Prayer in school is having religion imposed upon us! Actually I think it just taught to be thankful for what we have. Kids today lack that.

Are you saying that the lords prayer is not religious? Or are you saying that being required to do something by government is not imposing it upon them?
 
JLM
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Are you saying that the lords prayer is not religious? Or are you saying that being required to do something by government is not imposing it upon them?

What's your I.Q. anyway? Of course the Lord's Prayer is religious! Imposed? Hardly, no one made us recite it, it was 15 seconds in the day when you could think about whatever you wanted to. It's just one of those things that never did anyone real harm but possibly did benefit a few people. It's just not worth making a huge issue out of, any more than singing "O'Canada" at the beginning hockey game.
 
taxslave
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

It's not just reciting prayer, the point is that the bible use to have a place of honor in our society, and once that changed we started a downward spiral.



Actually God is the problem for the anti-God crowd friend. He's the one that defined marriage, and I'm pretty sure the Lord's been around a lot longer than myself. So if you have a problem with "progress" being "held back", then your beef is with your Creator.



Whenever you would like to have a serious discussion I'll be waiting. (And I would personally love it, but you seem to be more interested in cracks and insults.)

My parents created me. Your god is a myth, as are all the ones of other religions. Go talk to a science teacher sometime and he/she will explain the facts of life to you.
 
Ron in Regina
+3
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Of course the Lord's Prayer is religious! Imposed? Hardly, no one made us recite it, it was 15 seconds in the day when you could think about whatever you wanted to. It's just one of those things that never did anyone real harm but possibly did benefit a few people. It's just not worth making a huge issue out of, any more than singing "O'Canada" at the beginning hockey game.

I'm not that old, and I remember starting every school day with The Lord's Prayer, and O'Canada,
and God Save The Queen.....and they all where dropped shortly after they changed the lyrics to
O'Canada about 1976 or 1977 or so.....but that's a different topic I guess.

Euthanasia. That is a touchy subject, with much fear of abuse by many assuming that someone
else will make their choice for them....be it a Doctor or a Politician...and not the terminal Patient.

We're part way there, with DNR orders and such as long as they're respected. Personally, I'm
for someone having the choice to decide for themselves when the time comes.
 
SLM
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Euthanasia. That is a touchy subject, with much fear of abuse by many assuming that someone
else will make their choice for them....be it a Doctor or a Politician...and not the terminal Patient.

We're part way there, with DNR orders and such as long as they're respected. Personally, I'm
for someone having the choice to decide for themselves when the time comes.

It is a touchy subject for sure, but the 'fears' that people have regarding them are the very reason it needs to be discussed. This is less about having the right to decide to die, it's more about having some say in how much suffering we have to endure in order to ease someone elses 'fears'.
 
karrie
+2
#28
To answer the OP.... yes, her lawsuit should be allowed to continue. To not allow it to, would be the true perversion of justice.

I haven't landed firmly on one side of the assisted suicide debate yet. There are huge questions to consider surrounding it. But one thing I do know is that the patients who are trying to push this in court, are dying. They have a statement to make surrounding that fact, they have a legal challenge for the government surrounding that fact. And it would be ridiculously easy of the government to dodge that question by simply dragging its feet. It's a uniquely time limited legal issue, and I don't think it would be fair to the the challengers involved, to be silenced by time.
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

To answer the OP.... yes, her lawsuit should be allowed to continue. To not allow it to, would be the true perversion of justice.

I haven't landed firmly on one side of the assisted suicide debate yet. There are huge questions to consider surrounding it. But one thing I do know is that the patients who are trying to push this in court, are dying. They have a statement to make surrounding that fact, they have a legal challenge for the government surrounding that fact. And it would be ridiculously easy of the government to dodge that question by simply dragging its feet. It's a uniquely time limited legal issue, and I don't think it would be fair to the the challengers involved, to be silenced by time.

I think it's one of those things that has to be judged individually on its own merits. 90 years old all organs failing........definitely, 60 years old with a treatable disease and a few mental issues mixed in ....................definitely NOT.
 
karrie
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I think it's one of those things that has to be judged individually on its own merits. 90 years old all organs failing........definitely, 60 years old with a treatable disease and a few mental issues mixed in ....................definitely NOT.

Any proposed laws surrounding assisted suicide that I have seen would preclude anyone with untreated depression or mental problems from choosing it.
 

Similar Threads

28
Cats person *OR* Dog person
by westmanguy | Mar 28th, 2007
no new posts