Dr Death is..umm...dead!

[Dano Sverige]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13644926

Controversial figure.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[spartacus53]

Controversial Not in my book We need more like him that will do the right thing

Wow, that picture of him remind me of Zacherley

 

[Tuberale]

Suicide is a crime if it works; but if successful the criminal is never tried.

I would posit freedom to life implies freedom to death. Both go together. Only the person whose life is being considered has any "rights" to the decision. Allowing governments to take a life seems to me hypocritical.

I know physicians who condemned Kevorkian in public, but in private agreed with him.

Naysayers of Death With Dignity insisted it would lead to Grandma being put to sleep, legalized euthanasia, and other outcomes which have not been proven. Requirements for assisted suicide are so stringent some people cannot complete them in time, sometimes dying is what is medically termed "exquisite pain", where pain killers don't work. An example of exquisite pain is where a patient complains of cold, but cannot stand the touch of a sheet, and is therefore in a constant, high state of pain. Consider a patient with 90% of his body in 3rd degree burns.

IMO assisted suicide should be allowed to those for whom no demonstrable medical hope exists. Physicians quick to offer treatments should be able to demonstrate their effectiveness. Medical use of placebos would not be allowed.

Those who vote (and voted) to deny Death With Dignity should re-read Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

 

[ivan salis]

bottom line--who's life is it anyways ? ---are we " the people' owned by the state --to be told that we can or can not even decide to die if we so choose to ?-- because we by our death will cut off the "taxes" that the govt feeds off of ? --thus the govt wants us to live to the end of our fiscal usefulness to them and the hospitals that want to make us linger till the fiscal bitter end until we are "tapped out" , draining our life savings from us in the process leaving nothing but bills for our loved ones --instead of the money we saved for years for them *-- I say if your fatally Ill with not real hope of recovery --that YOU alone have the legal and moral right to decide how long the suffering goes on -- when the "quality of life" vs the pain and fiscal burden becomes unbearible .-- because damn it --who's life is it anyways?

 

[Dano Sverige]

I have to agree with you all really, but it's not down to governments, it's down to our religion. The bible says it's wrong to take your own life, so as the christian world is dominated by God fearing people...that's what they decide is the law.
The fact that most of them (in governments) if asked to name a favourite parable wouldn't have a clue what you were on about doesn't seem to matter!

 

[FarmerChick]

if the person has come to their own personal terms with the situation, then yes assissted suicide should be allowed.

if for any reason (religion or whatever) you do not ever want to participate, then sure, take life to the very end as you see fit.

just because religion says it is a sin, doesn't mean that person is held by that religion if they don't accept it....just another religion throwing its values onto others when not wanted.

 

[gord]

I have to agree with you all really, but it's not down to governments, it's down to our religion. The bible says it's wrong to take your own life, so as the christian world is dominated by God fearing people...that's what they decide is the law.
The fact that most of them (in governments) if asked to name a favourite parable wouldn't have a clue what you were on about doesn't seem to matter!

Actually, the bible says it is wrong to take ANY life - a lot of 'christian' adherents seem to ignore those parts!