Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

07 Nov 2017, 10:05 am

Skilpadde wrote:

I agree with everything you said in this post, Michael. It should never be up to anyone but the person themselves to decide whether or not their life is worth living. People shouldn't be forced to commit suicide by painful and extreme methods as is the case today.


Yes, and do-it-yourself deliverance is as unreliable as it is unpleasant. ...often just resulting in additional injury or damage.

For every one of us, something eventually happens to us, and we don't know how unpleasant it will be. We shouldn't have to choose between unacceptable pain, discomfort, loss of iife-quality, or some unpleasant do-it-yourself ordeal that might just worsen our condition. ...just because of someone else's notion of morality.

Michael Ossipoff


_________________
Michael829


Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,846
Location: Post Falls, ID

07 Nov 2017, 1:58 pm

So you guys are in favor of government/insurance companies telling a cancer patient that they won't pay for their treatment, even though it will likely cure them due to the cost, but they will pay for them to end their lives? That's what will happen.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

07 Nov 2017, 3:51 pm

Bataar wrote:
So you guys are in favor of government/insurance companies telling a cancer patient that they won't pay for their treatment, even though it will likely cure them due to the cost...

That happens anyway. Legalised euthanasia isn't required for insurance comps to deny treatment.

It's even worse if they say, not only will we not treat you, we won't let you have a painless death either.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,088

07 Nov 2017, 4:37 pm

If you opt out and sign up for hospice care, Medicare will pick up the bill for just about everything. You can have pills and pain meds delivered right to your door and you won't have to pay a penny.

Once your hospice benefit starts, Original Medicare will cover everything
you need related to your terminal illness, but the care you get must be from a
Medicare-approved hospice provider.
Hospice care is usually given in your home, but it also may be covered in a
hospice inpatient facility. Depending on your terminal illness and related
conditions, the plan of care your hospice team creates can include any or all
of these services:
■ Doctor services
■ Nursing care
■ Medical equipment (like wheelchairs or walkers)
■ Medical supplies (like bandages and catheters)
■ Prescription drugs
■ Hospice aide and homemaker services
■ Physical and occupational therapy
■ Speech-language pathology services
■ Social worker services
■ Dietary counseling
■ Grief and loss counseling for you and your family
■ Short-term inpatient care (for pain and symptom management)
■ Short-term respite care
■ Any other Medicare-covered services needed to manage your terminal
illness and related conditions, as recommended by your hospice team



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,295
Location: Stalag 13

10 Nov 2017, 10:40 pm

I'm flat out against it. When does the right to die become the duty to die? That practice will give parents an excuse to euthanize their disabled children. That's why I'm flat out against it, knowing the attitudes that the majority of people have towards people with disabilities.


_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Nov 2017, 8:52 pm

CockneyRebel wrote:
I'm flat out against it. When does the right to die become the duty to die? That practice will give parents an excuse to euthanize their disabled children. That's why I'm flat out against it, knowing the attitudes that the majority of people have towards people with disabilities.


I don't think it would extend to parents being able to just have their disabled child killed. Obviously there would have to be regulations to prevent that kind of thing...but the idea of being forced to die a slow painful death of a terminal illness while losing control of my basic bodily functions does not sound good to me. I'd hope I don't get ill like that, but if I did I certainly would like the option to end it sooner rather than later. Also I would like to be aware of my death...not so far gone due to some illness I don't even know what's going on.


_________________
We won't go back.


chromanebula
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: Atlanta

13 Nov 2017, 12:53 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
I'm flat out against it. When does the right to die become the duty to die? That practice will give parents an excuse to euthanize their disabled children. That's why I'm flat out against it, knowing the attitudes that the majority of people have towards people with disabilities.


I don't think it would extend to parents being able to just have their disabled child killed. Obviously there would have to be regulations to prevent that kind of thing...but the idea of being forced to die a slow painful death of a terminal illness while losing control of my basic bodily functions does not sound good to me. I'd hope I don't get ill like that, but if I did I certainly would like the option to end it sooner rather than later. Also I would like to be aware of my death...not so far gone due to some illness I don't even know what's going on.


First, the regulations would either be eroded over time, or never be enforced in the first place--see my earlier post for the links of this happening in places where assisted suicide/euthanasia is legal. Second, the more fundamental problem with the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement is that, by billing itself as "death with dignity," it implies that people in the last stages of a terminal illness, who have lost control of their basic bodily functions, have no dignity. Babies have no control over their basic bodily functions either; does that mean they have no dignity? That we can kill them with impunity? Of course not! Dignity does not depend on strength or autonomy, but on humanity alone. To believe otherwise is to open the door to the abuse of any human being deemed "imperfect." As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." An assault on anyone's dignity is an assault on human dignity. And that we cannot allow. To paraphrase a poem by Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the terminally ill, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not terminally ill.
Then they came for the incurably ill, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not incurably ill.
Then they came for the physically and mentally disabled, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not physically or mentally disabled.
Then they came for the Autistics—and there was no one left to speak for us."



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

13 Nov 2017, 3:13 am

chromanebula wrote:
Babies have no control over their basic bodily functions either; does that mean they have no dignity?

Yes


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

13 Nov 2017, 1:57 pm

Chromanebula should have the right to not use assisted dying. And the rest of us should have the right to not have Chromanebula make our life-choices for us.

voluntary euthanasia doesn't mean killing children, or killing disabled people. It merely means providing the necessary means when it's requested by that person. In the case of someone whose capacity to make decisions is in doubt, then arguably there should be some verification that their choice isn't completely, blatantly, irrational and wrong.

In the case of someone perceived to possibly be vulnerable to coercion, then of course it should be ascertained that s/he isn't being coerced.

chromanebula wrote:

"First they came for the terminally ill, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not terminally ill.
Then they came for the incurably ill, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not incurably ill.
Then they came for the physically and mentally disabled, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not physically or mentally disabled.
Then they came for the Autistics—and there was no one left to speak for us."


No one's going to come for you, Chromanebula. You'd have to go to the right people and make your request for assisted dying.

Michael829


_________________
Michael829