Originally posted by Great King RatI'm sure whodey can defend his own point, but it seemed to me that for the statement to which you were referring he was talking specifically about Robin Williams in 2014.
Yes, I would attempt to stop somebody from committing suicide.
I just find it ironic that Whodey - always so concerned with Freedom being taken away and Personal Responsibility disappearing as the Nanny State takes over your, mine and everybody's life* - is so easy to ditch all of that when somebody decides to steer that Freedom in a direction that ...[text shortened]... ER carrying a DNR?
* I'm positive Whodey could phrase this in a more poetic, hyperbolic way.
If we're going to talk about legality and/or morality of suicide (and specifically to what extent we intervene), we'd be remiss to not consider cases where the person may be making a terribly short sighted decision.
I once knew a Cornell graduate who tells of the practice of putting suicide watch guards near campus gorges on the day of the Freshmen class' first Chemistry exam. (I don't know if this still happens today). If I were near a freshman about to commit suicide because he failed (or perhaps made a C) on a Chemistry test, I would put up a spirited fight against it, sort of what whodey was suggesting he'd do had he been around Robin Williams. Note, this has nothing to do with government control because neither of us would have been acting in an official capacity.
Whodey may choose to answer questions about DNR and such, but it seems like a very reasonable position to say that in some cases you'd try to prevent a suicide. And I'd say this has little to do with one's view of the Nanny State.
Originally posted by whodeyUS television media outlets report that Robin Williams struggled with alcohol and drug addiction for decades which may have hastened the onset of Parkinson's Disease. Hanging himself was the culminating event of a gradual suicide process. imo
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/wife-robin-williams-had-parkinsons-disease-his-94744481702.html
Apparently, Robin Williams had recently been diagnosed with Parkinsons.
Was this the reason he killed himself? If so, should he be given the right to kill himself? For those who are in favor of euthanasia, should Robin have been able to check into a medical facility and terminate his life without any fear of "pain"?
Originally posted by EladarThe article is not particularly accurate - euthanasia deaths contribute to only about two percent of all deaths. Performing euthanasia without registering it is illegal; not following the prescribed procedures can and does lead to prosecution, in constrast to what is suggested in the article. The number of deaths relating to euthanasia is rising (1.8% in 2005 to 2.3% in 2010), but is hardly "out of control."
Seems to me that the talk of Euthanasia combined with Socialized medicine is not a good combination.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/euthanasia-is-out-of-control-in-the-netherlands-new-dutch-statistics
Oh, and the Netherlands has a private health care system.
Originally posted by whodeyI hope Parkinson was funnier than RW
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/wife-robin-williams-had-parkinsons-disease-his-94744481702.html
Apparently, Robin Williams had recently been diagnosed with Parkinsons.
Was this the reason he killed himself? If so, should he be given the right to kill himself? For those who are in favor of euthanasia, should Robin have been able to check into a medical facility and terminate his life without any fear of "pain"?
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands
The article is not particularly accurate - euthanasia deaths contribute to only about two percent of all deaths. Performing euthanasia without registering it is illegal; not following the prescribed procedures can and does lead to prosecution, in constrast to what is suggested in the article. The number of deaths relating to euthanasia is rising (1.8% i ...[text shortened]... 0), but is hardly "out of control."
Oh, and the Netherlands has a private health care system.
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private obligatory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from earmarked taxation.
Were you trying to deceive or were you simply ignorant?
Originally posted by EladarNeither - the "primary and curative care" is the vast majority of all health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands
[b]The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private obligatory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from earmarked taxation.
Were you trying to deceive or were you simply ignorant?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatI'm simply exploring worldviews is all.
See here Whodey's idea of "Freedom".
Marvelous.
Usually people fall into one of two categories.
1. Those that favor death only via euthanasia or abortion.
2. Those that favor death by killing only those who murder others.
Looking at these two worldviews, it seems to me that #1, where you assumingly fall, only favors death for those who are either too weak or incompetent to defend themselves adequately.
Of course, there are those like Robbie, who purport to favor neither, even though he spends all his waking hours defending those with the worldview of #1.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarLike in the VA
Total BS, the ones being terminated are the ones under Socialized care.
It's a simple message really. Once you have outlived your usefulness to society and are terminally ill, you need to let nature take its course and die quickly, cause you simply cost the state too much money.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, because legalizing something is the same as forcing people to do something.
Like in the VA
It's a simple message really. Once you have outlived your usefulness to society and are terminally ill, you need to let nature take its course and die quickly, cause you simply cost the state too much money.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyDamn... you, Eladar and some others here really do have an ongoing battle to determine who is the biggest moron of them all, don't you?
I'm simply exploring worldviews is all.
Usually people fall into one of two categories.
1. Those that favor death only via euthanasia or abortion.
2. Those that favor death by killing only those who murder others.
Looking at these two worldviews, it seems to me that #1, where you assumingly fall, only favors death for those who are either too we ...[text shortened]... or neither, even though he spends all his waking hours defending those with the worldview of #1.
Euthanasia isn't about killing those that are too weak to defend themselves, you disrespectful dumbass.
It gives people who don't wish to live anymore a way out that isn't messy and painful and gives them the oppurtunity to properly say their goodbyes to their loved ones and vice versa.
People who suffer from Lou Gehrig's disease for instance. Many people don't want to live the final stage of their lives as a vegetable. Instead, when they can still communicate properly they will wish to go on their terms.
Euthanasia isn't murdering people, you stupid, stupid, disrespectful, godfearing, hillbilly retard.
It gives people the freedom to take control over the end of their own lives.
Fvck, somebody should really punch your lights out, man.
Fvcking retard.