Terminally ill 29-year-old woman plans to take her own life on Nov. 1
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
Nothing i have said precludes the removal of 'heroic' life prolonging treatment in futile circumstances. That is natural death. What is precluded is the ritual suicide that is now proposed, affirmed by the medical establishment and government, that imposes an artificial and premature death on those who are ill.
Vulnerable and desperate people often become the victims of snake oil vendors, pushing some sophistry of sentiment drenched concepts of an 'easy' death as if the process of dying is something new, and has to be reinvented in our post modern culture.
Medical science is very adept at controlling and relieving pain now. But no one said life was going to be absent of pain and challenges. That it's only worth living in pristine and perfect conditions. These challenges actually form part of the basis of purpose and destiny in life. It's filled with joys and heartaches, that's the price of the ticket.
What everyone should be worried about is where this is going. In places like Netherlands and Belgium euthenasia is routinely carried out absent the patient's approval.. often the basis of cost.. or the agency of family members interested in winding up estates and moving on without the distraction of a sick relative. It has now moved relentlessly to include children and those who are NOT terminally ill. It will inevitably lead to the same thing here.
I've stated in other posts of the fallacy of "God is Love" arguments as negating any moral structure and absolutes.. or consequences for one's actions. It posits a world without rules, and without personal responsibilty, where everything is judged on purely material and temporal terms.
I certainly would not compare Brittany with Rosa Parks. Rosa's dissent was life affirming grounded in human dignity and equity. Brittany's was just the opposite. It stated "i've just given up, but i don't have the courage to kill myself, so i want the state and medical profession to do it for me, absent any stigma of cowardice and failure that attaches itself to suicide".
Sorry. I'm just not the impressed.. with her.. the noble characterizations of her in the media.
Last edited:
Whoa, I read articles by right to life people who stated those views but upon reading the whole article, it reminded me of the Canadian man who ended his daughters life after watching her go through years of pain. Doctors could not keep her pain free and he simply could not watch her suffer day after day. Most times they had no idea where the problem was. Imagine a child suffering so fiercely day after day. He killed her to relieve her pain. He was jailed for a time and then under house arrest for the remainder of his sentence.
We treat our animals much better. We do not allow them to suffer so. Why do we value an animals quality of life over a human's, especially those who are as young, dumb animals especially!! Why are we so cruel to those we care for, who are suffering.
God has nothing to do with it. If such a Being existed, It has long since practice non-interference in human affairs.
Last edited:
In that case I think it was right to charge and put him in jail because the child did not and could not consent. The decision should belong solely to the person who is dying or suffering, not those around them.
This sounds like the Robert Latimer case in Saskatchewan. From all the details released at the time I think most people correctly concluded he did the right thing and should NOT have been incarcerated. He actually served about 7 years in prison.
Robert Latimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree. Such a child is as an animal and is incapable of consent. If a child is hurt and incapable of giving consent to have life saving measures, or an operation, there is no hesitation in performing it.
That child is not left to die because of lack of consent. There are certain circumstances where we must be merciful and leaving a dumb animal (humans included) to suffer years of pain, is absolutely wrong.
It takes a pretty callous person to watch a beloved one suffer day after day, especially if that child could outlive the parent in that state.
Yes, and I am sure he would have done the same thing knowing he would serve the 10 years.
Haven't read the updates but it is a week into November. Second thoughts are allowed, she have any?
RIP, . . . .
grief is for the living and it's quite natural, so is healing from that loss and it should have started by 30 days after the loss. Nicer to have the choice than somebody deciding 'you are too much trouble to keep around'. No examples come to mind but 5 minutes of looking would provide at least that many examples. I can't say my feelings for the bankers that committed suicide back in 1930 is close to being at the same level that I can feel for this woman even though she is also a stranger.
A case like this gets a lots of people emotional involved yet when machete killers go on a month long rampage it get less of a reaction rather than more. That is where my stumbling block is, a 'worse crime' deserves 'more condemnation rather than less', since I don't see that as a 'fine line' the odds of it changing is zero, but then I don't see it as making me a detriment to society.
grief is for the living and it's quite natural, so is healing from that loss and it should have started by 30 days after the loss. Nicer to have the choice than somebody deciding 'you are too much trouble to keep around'. No examples come to mind but 5 minutes of looking would provide at least that many examples. I can't say my feelings for the bankers that committed suicide back in 1930 is close to being at the same level that I can feel for this woman even though she is also a stranger.
A case like this gets a lots of people emotional involved yet when machete killers go on a month long rampage it get less of a reaction rather than more. That is where my stumbling block is, a 'worse crime' deserves 'more condemnation rather than less', since I don't see that as a 'fine line' the odds of it changing is zero, but then I don't see it as making me a detriment to society.
This is the kind of stilted logic that led Belgium to legalize the euthenasia of children based on some amorphous concept of 'quality of life'.. with impressionable children, in desperate circumstances put under intense, sentiment drenched pressure to accept a 'humane' end.
In countries that have accepted euthenasia such as the Netherlands... the comatose, the incoherent, the severely incapacitated are routinely killed without their permission based on hearsay evidence of 'living wills'. Many are not even terminally ill, they are just chronically ill, and expensive and inconvenient to state and family.
Palliative treatment in these countries have been severely defunded. Leaving many individuals without a choice between suicide and casting crippling financial burdens on their families. A process of persuasion of severely depressed individuals to end their lives, which is systematically applied, is in no way a fair assessment of their wishes.
It is a symptom of a sick society... it is pure Naziism, eliminating 'useless eaters' without the need for the tanks and blitzkreig to impose it, just pervasive ignorance.
As far as Brittany Maynard goes. There was an interesting contrast in the news stories over the weekend of Lauren Hill, someone afflicted with the same disease, terminal brain cancer, as Brittany.. who played a college basketball game and has become a symbol of courage and fighting spirit. Sadly Brittany is a symbol of cowardice and surrender. Who do you think is the more worthy 'hero'.
Last edited:
Well, contrary to your opinion, the law in the Netherlands is quite tough. The idea that suffering is noble is only held by those who do not do so. Most who choose to die cannot do it on a whim.
"Accordingly, Dutch law requires that each euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide request meet six specific criteria. The patient’s treating doctor and another, independent doctor must authorize the request, and only a doctor may administer the lethal dose, or one must stay with the patient during physician-assisted suicide.
In 2012 the 4,188 deaths by euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide represented 3 percent of all deaths that year, which is OK with most Dutch. According to a 2013 EenVandaag poll, 91 percent favor assisted suicide in cases of hopeless and unbearable physical suffering. Some 85 percent support euthanasia for patients with dementia who don’t want to live with the condition, and 56 percent said they favor legalizing a suicide pill."
They are considering extending the law to include psychiatric patients who meet certain criteria. Here also, it must be voluntary. To grant the option of ending their life actually gives many the comfort of knowing they can choose to end the suffering when it no longer becomes bearable.
The difference between allowing an option and forbidding it, in this case is the interfering with one's right to choose. When one chooses to limit life choices, they are interfering with the choices of others. Even if one believes, as according to many religions, it is a sin or forbidden by their faith, to interfere in another's life or death is usurping God's power.
This is an article of the REAL state of euthernasia in the Netherlands.
Boer: I was wrong — euthanasia has a slippery slope
It is a slippery slope leading to a situation without limits or a moral geography. You stand a good chance of being murdered now if you go to a Dutch hospital with a serious illness. That is just the opposite of the nonsense sophistry of 'freedom' that is being used to promote this agenda of death.
A tyranny of reckless homicide has overtaken that country.. and it is about to get MUCH worse. It will lead to a breakdown of economic and social order on a catastrophic scale.
Come now..... l in 30 people on the verge of death chose their time to die. That leaves 29 in 30 who chose to suffer to the end and not choose their time of exit. It is not a slippery slope, there are too many safeguards in place. Of course those taking advantage of the law, prefer to exit at a time of their choosing. Others apparently wish to suffer.
It is much like in Canada when Medicare came into force. So many people could not afford treatment for their problems and suffered as long as possible before seeing a doctor for relief.
I do not consider 1 in 30 deaths done by euthanasia excessive. It simply means that 29 in 30 felt the need to suffer to the bitter end. Now, I do realize that some deaths were accidental, or murder.....and I am sure it will continue to increase somewhat, until each dying patients has a choice on how they wish to exit this life.
One other thing, most doctors will give their patients pain killers to relieve their pain. Very few patients scream in pain for hours on end these days. Doctors will continue to do their best to keep a patient pain free but there is a limit. When a patient begging for relief at the end, to increase the dose, the patients are advised/told, that an increased dose may be too much. They will not say fatal. So in a way, euthanasia of a sort has been going on for years.
You have noticed, I assume that article was written by a Professor of Ethics at a Theological University, not by a medical doctor, nor by someone with first hand experience within the actual system??
I realize you feel euthanasia, is religiously verboten, but many of us have a kinder view of a universal being if one exists.
I