1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYep, the part where he says: "this question can now be answered. It is both." seems to conclude his argument. It thereby seems to imply(i'm not sure about this, because i don't know the context) that he did some empirical research. If it really was some empirical research, he should renew it, or you should come up with newer research (because it was done when euthanasia was still illegal). If it isn't an empirical research it is worthless for defending your 'slippery slope', as the slippery slope's existence can only be proven by some empirical research.
mikkip: " .... as his article was published ten years before the dutch euthanisialaw came into work."
.... and this disproves what he had to say ?
Therefore (again): give us some facts!
4 edits
Originally posted by mikkipMikkip: " give us some facts!"
Yep, the part where he says: "this question can now be answered. It is both." seems to conclude his argument. It thereby seems to imply(i'm not sure about this, because i don't know the context) that he did some empirical research. If it ...[text shortened]... ome empirical research.
Therefore (again): give us some facts!
The Groningen Protocol.
The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an "independent committee" charged with selecting babies and older people up to twelve years.
Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.
The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.
"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no
hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."
A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
EDIT:
By TOBY STERLING
(AP) Ten thousands protesters demonstrate outside Dutch government buildings as the Upper House of...
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.
The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
" ..... as a natural evolution by advocates."
..... "natural evolution" ...
The famous non-existing "Slippery Slope" in action !
1 edit
mikkip: " ... give us the facts."
"We have to go stage by stage, with the living will, with the power of attorney, with the withdrawal of this, and of that; we have to go stage by stage. Your side would call that the 'slippery slope."
Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society. *)
*) Derek Humphry in a December 18, 1986 interview. Quoted in Leslie Bond. "Hemlock Society Forms New Organization to Push Assisted Suicide Initiative." National Right to Life News, December 18, 1986, pages 1 and 10.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor those who want to read the ENTIRE article that Ivanhoe selectively quoted without citation it is at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/.
Mikkip: " give us some facts!"
The Groningen Protocol.
The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an "independent committee" charged with selecting babies and older people up to twelve years.
Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a t ...[text shortened]... ..... "natural evolution" ...
The famous non-existing "Slippery Slope" in action !
Originally posted by ivanhoeIN my work I am available to help with living wills, power of attorney and end of life decisions. For me, the important thing is that patients and families enter into conversations about these important issues so that patient wishes are honored. If a patient decides they do not want heroic medical measures and wants to die, the family need not feel guilty for advocating for his/her wishes.
mikkip: " ... give us the facts."
"We have to go stage by stage, with the living will, with the power of attorney, with the withdrawal of this, and of that; we have to go stage by stage. Your side would call that the 'slippery slope."
Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society. *)
*) Derek Humphry in a December 18, 1986 interview. Quoted ...[text shortened]... sted Suicide Initiative." National Right to Life News, December 18, 1986, pages 1 and 10.
I cannot speak for what occurs in the Netherlands, but my experience in my service area is that people are generally prefering to go home to die pain free in the good company of their family.
Originally posted by kirksey957
IN my work I am available to help with living wills, power of attorney and end of life decisions. For me, the important thing is that patients and families enter into conversations about these important issues so that patient wishes are honored. If a patient decides they do not want heroic medical measures and wants to die, the family need not feel gui ...[text shortened]... people are generally prefering to go home to die pain free in the good company of their family.
Of course, when your time has come it is essential you get good care and receive pain relieving treatment. Thàt is dying with dignity.
These cases have nothing to do with Euthanasia whatsoever. Letting people die in a respectful and caring manner has nothing to do with active Euthanasia, willfully taking a human being's life.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks No1.for citing one of the many sites displaying the article. It was obvious it was an article. I even mentioned the author's name: "By TOBY STERLING"
For those who want to read the ENTIRE article that Ivanhoe selectively quoted without citation it is at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/.
Please be carefull no1 because your innuendo starts creeping in.
I may add that quotes are always selective. The very nature of quotes.
EDIT: Does your remark change the facts I presented, No1 ?
EDIT II: Doesn't your remark prove that I'm not making things up, No1 ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe article is more nuanced and presents more facts. I suggest others read the entire article before accepting your one-sided presentation. Don't have time for a full response now, but the article is quite clear that the euthanasia law has nothing whatsoever to do with the Groningen Protocol and that the Protocol is intended only for terminal ill children with no hope of living off life-support. I'll have to consider whether removing such a child from life support knowing it will die is morally different from injecting it with something, but I urge others to look the article over.
Thanks No1.for citing one of the many sites displaying the article. It was obvious it was an article. I even mentioned the author's name: "By TOBY STERLING"
Please be carefull no1 because your innuendo starts creeping in.
I may add that quotes are always selective. The very nature of quotes.
EDIT: Does your remark change the facts I presented, No1 ?
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1,
The article is more nuanced and presents more facts. I suggest others read the entire article before accepting your one-sided presentation. Don't have time for a full response now, but the article is quite clear that the euthanas ...[text shortened]... ing it with something, but I urge others to look the article over.
We were discussing the famous Slippery Slope, the non-existing phenomenon, according to the Euthanasia advocates. Mikkip wanted to see some evidence. I provided "some evidence" I found on the net. The article I found referred to the things I was stating. That's why I quoted it.
No1: "The article is more nuanced and presents more facts."
That is usually the relation between an article and quotes therefrom.
Take a look at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/983ynlcv.asp
and take a look at: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html
and: http://cut-to-cure.blogspot.com/2004/12/first-they-came-for-invalids-and-i-did.html
"What makes this even more troubling is the decision to euthanize a child may not rest with the parents:
A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
Talk about a slippery slope!"
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you specifically state what you mean by the "famous" Slippery Slope as it is unclear to me how you are using this expression in this particular context. And then after you define the term, perhaps you could explain what any of this has to do with Darvlay's original post regarding voluntary assisted suicide?
No1,
We were discussing the famous Slippery Slope, the non-existing phenomenon, according to the Euthanasia advocates. Mikkip wanted to see some evidence. I provided "some evidence" I found on the net. The article I found referred to the things I was stating. That's why I quoted it.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Why don't you specifically state what you mean by the "famous" Slippery Slope as it is unclear to me how you are using this expression in this particular context. And then after you define the term, perhaps you could explain what any of this has to do with Darvlay's original post regarding voluntary assisted suicide?
It has to do with the thread's title: : "The Wonders of Euthanasia".
You know what "Slippery Slope" means in this context. I'm not going to enter some infinite discussion about definitions. I want to discuss "The Wonders of Euthanasia".
Originally posted by ivanhoePlay your games by yourself, Ivanhoe; if you don't want to discuss the issues just say so. If you refuse to define your terms, I don't know what you're talking about; I know what a "slippery slope" argument is in law, but it's not clear to me how you are using it HERE. Either define the term, or I'm not responding anymore as this is getting to be your typical childish nonsense.
It has to do with the thread's title: : "The Wonders of Euthanasia".
You know what "Slippery Slope" means in this context. I'm not going to enter some infinite discussion about definitions. I want to discuss "The Wonders of Euthanasia".
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are turning to your usual tactics. Do as you please.
Play your games by yourself, Ivanhoe; if you don't want to discuss the issues just say so. If you refuse to define your terms, I don't know what you're talking about; I know what a "slippery slope" argument is in law, but it g anymore as this is getting to be your typical childish nonsense.
Read my reaction to Darfius's first post. Maybe things will become clear to you what I mean.
This is what I wrote:
"Darvlay: " I, for one, am completely for it if limited to those with degenerative, terminal diseases and are over the age of consent."
That's where it starts ........ but do you know where it ends ? If you start allowing killing then you must allow the "Right to Die for All" in the end, because every line you draw is "unjust" to those who are on the other side of the line, those who are not allowed to die."
This is the essence of the actual social and political proces called "the Slippery Slope" that will take place once you allowed people to kill and to be killed.
I have had several dogs that have been euthanized because they got old and feeble or were in the latter stages of cancer. I have had it done at home where they are comfortable with the surroundings. I would also dig the grave and our family would have a ritual of some type. We tend to see euthanizing a pet as a very humane thing to do that alleviates the animal's suffering. In short, an act of mercy. Why do we not make the association that if we would be so kind to our beloved pet, that we would not offer this to a beloved family member?
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957
I have had several dogs that have been euthanized because they got old and feeble or were in the latter stages of cancer. I have had it done at home where they are comfortable with the surroundings. I would also dig the grave and our f ...[text shortened]... oved pet, that we would not offer this to a beloved family member?
What is your stance on the "Groningen" protocol, Kirk ?