Assisted Suicide

[DC Al Fine]

Way too many issues here with consent for me to support it.

[DC Al Fine]

Way too many issues here with consent for me to support it.

Whose consent? Assisted suicide implies that the person dying has consented to it. It's not the same as pulling the plug on a coma patient - this is a situation where the person in question is lucid and can indicate intent.

Sure, but we are living in the real world. To cite the Netherlands, plenty of people wind up being euthanized without their consent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/26/but-rick-santorums-sorta-right-about-dutch-euthanasia/

Among other things, the article lists
1) Patients being euthanized when they could not possibly consent
2) Euthanasia regulations not being followed completely 41%
3) Infants being euthanized

Would you feel more comfortable about torture in America if Britain did it with strict regulations that were followed less than half the time with the odd tortured baby making it's way in there?

Euthanasia is a classic example of DC's law of unintended yet completely foreseeable consequences. Despite claims that assisted suicide will never lead to involuntary euthanasia, it appears that proper procedure is the exception, not the rule.

[DC Al Fine]

Way too many issues here with consent for me to support it.

Whose consent? Assisted suicide implies that the person dying has consented to it. It's not the same as pulling the plug on a coma patient - this is a situation where the person in question is lucid and can indicate intent.

Sure, but we are living in the real world. To cite the Netherlands, plenty of people wind up being euthanized without their consent.

Assisted suicide and non-voluntary euthanasia are not the same thing. One is where the person in question is making a conscious choice to end things, the other is where someone else is making the decision for them. Medically the process is essentially the same, but legally they fall into different categories.

Yes, but I have yet to see a case where the government has done a good job of seperating the two. Ergo, I cannot in good conscience support it.

[DC Al Fine]

VERY STRONGLY support.

Forcing someone who wants to die to remain alive is one of the most morally abominable things I can think of.

What makes you think the choice will only be made by the patient?

Hum... Because that's the whole point of assisted suicide?

Just like the whole point of the Iraq invasion was WMD's Seriously though, there is a huge difference between theoretical law and practical reality.

[DC Al Fine]

VERY STRONGLY support.

Forcing someone who wants to die to remain alive is one of the most morally abominable things I can think of.

What makes you think the choice will only be made by the patient?

Hum... Because that's the whole point of assisted suicide?

Just like the whole point of the Iraq invasion was WMD's Seriously though, there is a huge difference between theoretical law and practical reality.

The goal of the law would be making sure that this doesn't happen. If you claim the law would not be able to prevent abuses, then what's the point about a law banning assisted suicide anyway? You have to be consistent: either the law is effective or it isn't.

The laws under which the questionable euthanasia takes place make a huge difference in effectiveness.

Which do you think is easier to differentiate in court?
1) Determining whether someone gave a fatal dose of barbituates.
2) Determining whether an elderly person was unduly influenced when they asked to die.

The 2nd one makes it almost impossible to catch problem cases in euthanasia, while the 1st one catches them by default.

[DC Al Fine]

VERY STRONGLY support.

Forcing someone who wants to die to remain alive is one of the most morally abominable things I can think of.

What makes you think the choice will only be made by the patient?

Hum... Because that's the whole point of assisted suicide?

Just like the whole point of the Iraq invasion was WMD's Seriously though, there is a huge difference between theoretical law and practical reality.

The goal of the law would be making sure that this doesn't happen. If you claim the law would not be able to prevent abuses, then what's the point about a law banning assisted suicide anyway? You have to be consistent: either the law is effective or it isn't.

The laws under which the questionable euthanasia takes place make a huge difference in effectiveness.

Which do you think is easier to differentiate in court?
1) Determining whether someone gave a fatal dose of barbituates.
2) Determining whether an elderly person was unduly influenced when they asked to die.

The 2nd one makes it almost impossible to catch problem cases in euthanasia, while the 1st one catches them by default.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of precautions that can be taken to make sure those who want to die really want it. A good deal of paperwork and a significant waiting time should be enough. And furthermore... it's not like every single doctor and family member in this country is a sociopath, you know?

Given the Netherlands complete failure in this matter . Why would the USA be any different?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems that the Netherlands euthanasia regulation is about effective as Wall Street's regulation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might as well argue that France should introduce a well regulated death penalty, while America executes the odd 16 year old shoplifter.

[DC Al Fine]

I really don't need assistance to off myself. Thanks.

Not to be macabre but... you might need it some day. And so can I. If I even find myself not in the situation to choose how and when to end my life, I would want someone to do it on my behalf.

That awkward moment when Antonio V gets offed despite wanting to stay alive at the time.

[DC Al Fine]

This is not name-calling. Read my post again.

I've already pointed out how poorly regulated euthanasia is in the Netherlands. Your claims of paranoia are completely off base.