1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanA man was euthanised in the Netherlands because he claimed he was "suffering from life" .... he was not terminally ill, in fact he wasn't ill at all, not in a physical, not in a psychiatric way ..... he simply thought he had enough of it all .....
That is just plainly not true, there are often situations where the amount of drug use required to alleviate the symptoms is too dangerous to continue, especially on long term useage. We are not talking about a couple of days in pain, we c ...[text shortened]... on physical pain alone you are missing a great deal of the issue.
This is against the Dutch Euthanasia Law. The doctor was prosecuted, found guilty, didn't get any punishment at all and everything was all right in Euthanasialand .....
The groningen protocol sets five criteria for a newborn live to be ended:
1. The newborns suffering must be so severe and unendurable that his/her future is fututeless
2. The suffering cannot be treated or cured with medicine or operations
3. The parents must univocally agree
4. A second opinion from an independent third party is a condition.
5. The manner in which the ending of his life is performed must be carried out very very carefully, with emphasis on aftercare.
Source (in Dutch): http://www.umcg.nl/azg/nl/nieuws/persberichten/45610?pathkey=6936
1 edit
I can see no evil arising from the Groningen Medical Center (literally, as i can see the building out of my window), these seem very good criteria. Note that criteria one is more thoroughly defined in the protocol between the Public Prosecutor and the Groningen Medical Center. Criteria one covers (an estimation by doctors) only 10 people per year in the Netherlands (16 million people) (as posted before by (i think) No1).
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are putting forth a point of little relevance to my post. If the doctor in question adhered to the law all fine and good, if he did not, then he should suffer the consequences, it is a matter of and for Dutch law. I am interested in why you think it is okay to force someone to endure inhumane conditions eventually leading to their death, not whether a singular incident involving a Dutch doctor is of any relevance.
A man was euthanised in the Netherlands because he claimed he was "suffering from life" .... he was not terminally ill, in fact he wasn't ill at all, not in a physical, not in a psychiatric way ..... he simply thought he had enough of it all .....
This is against the Dutch Euthanasia Law. The doctor was prosecuted, found guilty, didn't get any punishment at all and everything was all right in Euthanasialand .....
Originally posted by mikkip
The groningen protocol sets five criteria for a newborn live to be ended:
1. The newborns suffering must be so severe and unendurable that his/her future is fututeless
2. The suffering cannot be treated or cured with medicine or operations
3. The parents must univocally agree
4. A second opinion from an independent third party is a condition.
5. The man ...[text shortened]... tercare.
Source (in Dutch): http://www.umcg.nl/azg/nl/nieuws/persberichten/45610?pathkey=6936
Wonderfull criteria, in particular the "very very carefully" part. We have heard this before in the Netherlands. Doctors can kill almost everybody these days if they do it "very very carefully". (Sorry, little cynical joke ....)
These criteria will be put aside as soon as a law will be passed in this field. This also happened with the first Euthanasia law. This Infanticide law, same as the Euthanasia law, was not in the first place initiated because they wanted to reduce suffering but to give the doctors more judicial security in performing their profession. They do not want to run the risk of being prosecuted for murder. Very understandable from their point of view.
By the way, what is meant by "aftercare" when you write:
"The manner in which the ending of his life is performed must be carried out very very carefully, with emphasis on aftercare."
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanBecause the society in which we will enter allowing "the Right to Die" for all, will be a society where without a doubt selfishness and indifference will rule. It is a way of destroying the most vital life giving fundaments of our society. It is a way of destroying our society and as a result of that destroying ourselves.
You are putting forth a point of little relevance to my post. If the doctor in question adhered to the law all fine and good, if he did not, then he should suffer the consequences, it is a matter of and for Dutch law. I am interested in ...[text shortened]... a singular incident involving a Dutch doctor is of any relevance.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI respect that you are attempting to argue outside of religious grounds, but by doing so you are failing to offer any serious objection. Please demonstrate how this 'selfishness and indifference' will abound. Please define the 'vital life giving fundamentals of society' and explain why you think they are important. Explain how euthanasia will i your eyes destroy society. If you can do this outside of religious grounds I will happily reconsider my stance on it, until then I'm afraid I have the impression you don't really understand the implications of your position.
Because the society in which we will enter allowing "the Right to Die" for all, will be a society where without a doubt selfishness and indifference will rule. It is a way of destroying the most vital life giving fundaments of our society. It is a way of destroying our society and as a result of that destroying ourselves.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat a load of cobblers Ivanhoe.
Because the society in which we will enter allowing "the Right to Die" for all, will be a society where without a doubt selfishness and indifference will rule. It is a way of destroying the most vital life giving fundaments of our society. It is a way of destroying our society and as a result of that destroying ourselves.
If someone wants to kill themself, who cares?
I have far greater problems with governments killing civilians in other countries than somebody taking their own life.
People have been topping themselves for millenia and society is still up and running.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I don't get my info from Hollywood. I'm involved intimately with families and patients making these choices. So again, how would your interventions with these situations look?
You are talking now about a very different issue. What you posted is not about the moral permissibility of infanticide.
The media will brain-wash people into accepting passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia with consent and after that euthanasia without consent such as infanticide and killing severely disabled or handicapped people.
Everybody inte ...[text shortened]... u have to check out the Hollywood productions.
Propaganda ? Brainwashing ? You tell me !
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI advise you to study the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Everything is there you need to know.
I respect that you are attempting to argue outside of religious grounds, but by doing so you are failing to offer any serious objection. Please demonstrate how this 'selfishness and indifference' will abound. Please define the 'vital ...[text shortened]... on you don't really understand the implications of your position.
By the way, Euthanasia is only a small section of the Ideology, the New Order, that is developing at the moment. The Bio-Industrial Complex is just beginning to put its marks on our society. This new Ideology will destroy much of our society and will cause much human suffering if we fail to stop it.
Starrman: " I have the impression you don't really understand the implications of your position."
Well who is stopping you to make it clear to me ? I invite you to do so.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe infanticide law doesn't exist, it is only a protocol which is now being discussed to become law some day.
Wonderfull criteria, in particular the "very very carefully" part. We have heard this before in the Netherlands. Doctors can kill almost everybody these days if they do it "very very carefully". (Sorry, little cynical joke ....)
These criteria will be put aside as soon as a law will be passed in this field. This also happened with the first Euthana ...[text shortened]... f his life is performed must be carried out very very carefully, with emphasis on aftercare."
"more judicial security in performing their profession" If the criteria are not applied the dying of a child cannot be called "euthanisia" afterwards. So the protocol only gives room to end a life which applies to the criteria and does not provide judicial security on anything other than that.
Aftercare applies to the doctors and parents who have to decide on this difficult issue. Maybe you don't know that euthanisia is always a tough decision for everyone involved. It is not for the fun of anyone. But one has to do best in the interest of the patient not in the interest of anyone else.
Originally posted by shavixmirShavixmir: "If someone wants to kill themself, who cares?"
What a load of cobblers Ivanhoe.
If someone wants to kill themself, who cares?
I have far greater problems with governments killing civilians in other countries than somebody taking their own life.
People have been topping themselves for millenia and society is still up and running.
Who said something about indifference ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe are not talking about eugenics here, do not try and turn some sort of horror story scare tactic into a reasonable reality. I'm attempting to encourage you to clarify your position on euthanasia so that I can further assess whether there is any merit in your stance. All you are doing here is talking in imaginative leaps. What "New Order"? What "Ideology"? Do you honestly believe the Third Reich practices are becoming mainstream? Euthanasia wasn't even part of the Third Reich's practices, being as it is a way of helping people who wish to die, do so. The Third Reich practiced eugenics, but I doubt they ever had people's life situation and best interests in mind.
I advise you to study the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Everything is there you need to know.
By the way, Euthanasia is only a small section of the Ideology, the New Order, that is developing at the moment. The Bio-Industrial Complex is just beginning to put its marks on our society. This new Ideology will destroy much of our society and will cause ...[text shortened]... of your position."
Well who is stopping you to make it clear to me ? I invite you to do so.
I really want to hear a constructive theory on euthanasia from you so that I can decide whether or not it has any worth. Alas as far as I can see, you are straying form the subject in an attempt to support a failing arguement.
Originally posted by kirksey957
Ivanhoe, I don't get my info from Hollywood. I'm involved intimately with families and patients making these choices. So again, how would your interventions with these situations look?
I know Kirk. I wish you would try and understand what I was trying to say about how people are being "introduced" to the new possibilities and how they are fed with it almost daily by the mass media.
If you interact with your people at the moments you described, they are already adherents of the New Ideology, same as you are Kirk. Comfort them and tell 'm God is a forgiving God. That's all you can do in your situation.