$1,000,000 baby, too taboo social issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I see the reasoning behind your view, however just one example. what if the person was suffering and was mentally sound and chose to end it all, but physically unable?

---

Then they're SOL.

Can they move their mouth? Can they talk? If so then they are physically able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Then they're SOL.

Can they move their mouth? Can they talk? If so then they are physically able.

---

SOL ????

can talk and make coherant choices but physically unable to move, not even to put an overdose in their own mouth. Has to be fed by a tube.

would you consider someone that fed the pills to that person to be going beyond the "giving them the means"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

SOL ????

can talk and make coherant choices but physically unable to move, not even to put an overdose in their own mouth. Has to be fed by a tube.

would you consider someone that fed the pills to that person to be going beyond the "giving them the means"

---

Absolutely.

Will you come back with "...but they have to swallow it"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Absolutely.

Will you come back with "...but they have to swallow it"?

---

no they are fed by a tube.

I am asking this because you are ok with providing the means but not the action, I.E. handing the knife but not pushing it in.
But to me that means that one has to be not only mentally capable but physically as well.
I believe that one needs to be mentally capable to make the choice with assisted suicide. Without this part it is murder on the part of the assistant.

Why should it only be the mobile that can end their suffering if they so wish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

no they are fed by a tube.

I am asking this because you are ok with providing the means but not the action, I.E. handing the knife but not pushing it in.
But to me that means that one has to be not only mentally capable but physically as well.
I believe that one needs to be mentally capable to make the choice with assisted suicide. Without this part it is murder on the part of the assistant.

Why should it only be the mobile that can end their suffering if they so wish?

---

Oh a tube. You did say that. I was thinking Christopher Reeve.

The middle 3 sentences we agree on but you knew that.

Regarding the last sentence...

I say they are SOL because if one isn't in some way mobile (even moving their mouth)....then how do they kill themselves? :blink:

I don't even look at my method as assisted suicide.

The suicidal person will have to do ALL the work.

it's just a movie...it's called teh "entertainment" industry for a reason...geeze, people take shit too seriously.
a year from now, hardly anyone will remember this movie, and move on to the next crap to protest.
people that bitch about such insignificant stuff shouldn't even be given media attention, which is all they want.
whores.

anyway, on youth-in-asia, drug use, abortion, whatever...a person should be free to do with their own body whatever they choose to do, so long as it doens't endanger anyone else.

just don't let your fucking corpse be blocking my driveway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparsely

just don't let your fucking corpse be blocking my driveway.

---

but after cremation the ashes can stop you slipping over in the snow or ice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

What "help" do you refer to?

If it equates to one handing a knife to someone who wants to commit suicide then I see nothing wrong with that. If it equates to one literally helping the person plunge the knife into their chest then that's what I take issue with.

Logic.

---

I refer to the latter example, which, logically speaking, you might have deduced, had you not been so intent on picking nits.

This stems from the Kevorkian era, when it seemed we were about to begin conferring medical degrees upon those who wished to "help people die with dignity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I refer to the latter example, which, logically speaking, you might have deduced, had you not been so intent on picking nits.

This stems from the Kevorkian era, when it seemed we were about to begin conferring medical degrees upon those who wished to "help people die with dignity".

---

Picking nits?!!

Nit picking is the difference between murder and suicide, fella.

Read it again.

I don't know about this "die with dignity" shit. So what now, if you die of cancer, you have no dignity but if you shoot yourself in the head whilst having cancer, you are all of a sudden dignified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I guess then my point would be that, although there are myriad ways to exercise the personal option of taking one's life, the fulcrum is balanced upon the issue of the individual whose condition precludes personal action, and requires "help" to end his/her life, and so the situation dictates a felt need for legal protection to be conferred upon those who feel the call to provide this, um....service.

In the name of freedom, the ability of individual states to define themselves as legal sanctuaries for things such as euthanasia (and likewise abortion, the death penalty, etc.) should not be curtailed.

---

B-

Please re-read this; it should reveal my note of the particular circumstance which concerns you, specifically that if a body has the ability to end his/her life, they need not answer to any authority as to their actions.

The sticking point is, as we have both noted, the candidate for whom action is impossible, due to disability.

It is at this point that the "helpful" third party attempts to present his/her services, and, in so doing, asks for legal sanctuary in order to operate freely.

Neither of us are excited by this eventuality, and, for your further edification, I will note here that my use of the term "death with dignity" was meant to be an ironic appropriation of the rhetoric that I abhor.

In any future readings of my posting, please remember to attenuate your own cynicism so as to not overlook mine?