And exactly what does that have to do with anything. The government is not going to make the necessary drugs available to the general public so your arguement is moot.
Why don't they just do it the old fashioned way and eat a bullet? I don't get it at all. There are so many drugs they can OD on if they want to off themselves. Hell a nice dose of heroin would take care of them pretty quick - no pain - no nothing - lights out. - - - Updated - - - Yea right. I can get any drug I want within 20 minutes.
Well not everyone travels in those type of circles. Not to mention the fact that by the time one is ill enough and long enough to be ready for suicide they may not be in the shape required to go hunting for illegal drugs.
Here is your statement: Quote Originally Posted by squidward View Post This has already been addressed. Drugs are restricted by the government that makes the laws. It can authorize any one it wants to authorize to dispense the meds for this use. My statement was very relevent to your comment . Who would you suggest the government authorize other than doctors to dispense the drugs if they are not to be made available to the public ?
You have no way to know, absent a suicide note, and neither do I, just what thoughts go through the mind of one who commits suicide. My bet is most people DO make those calculations, how best to take care of those left behind. But clearly it's an individual choice. Call it selfish if you must, but more likely it's selfless. I've had friends who did it, and read the suicide note, 3 pages worth, later.
We have no certain way to know even with a suicide note. That note tells us how someone who attempts suicide wants his act to be perceived by those he leaves behind. It tells us not what he really was thinking, or really why he wanted to do it, but instead it answers a different question about what notions he wanted to leave behind about himself and his act for 'posterity'. Do not assume the 'note' is especially honest or candid. Like everything written, it is designed to produce in the reader, the reaction its author wants it to. Certainly if depression is part of the picture, it is bound to warp his perception of himself, his self worth and the significance of his death. That is the nature of clinical chronic or acute depression. It magnifies some aspects of its victims sense of reality and marginalizes others.
We've had assisted suicide in Oregon for almost 20 years. Works as it should - quietly and well regulated. It's nice for folks to have that option if they choose it. Just about anything that relieves suffering is humane. There is no slippery slope, at least here in Oregon. The law and regulations are quite clear. Those who believe it is an affront to their God's will can choose not to use it. Those that believe they can impose their religious beliefs on others can suck eggs.
Which branch of the government do you think can authorize dispensing lethal drugs to agents other than doctors. And who do you think will be responsible for prescribing the drugs if not doctors.
` ` 1) Having worked on a hospice wing of DNR patients and having seen terminally ill cancer victims suffer, I'm all for this California law. Religion has no place in this debate. This is a personal decision between a person and whatever they conceive their supreme divinity to be. 2) There are already problems with this law; Assisted-suicide law prompts insurance company to deny coverage to terminally ill California woman - "A terminally ill California woman says her insurance company denied her coverage for chemotherapy treatment but offered to pay for her to kill herself, shortly after California passed a law permitting physician-assisted suicide". 3) Good place place for all those who got crushed when Hillary lost.
If you are terminally ill, and you want to end your life, you can certainly choose to do one of your suggestions. Others will choose otherwise. Well, aren't you special.
How and IF a perfect stranger lives their own life (or ends it) should be no business of anyone else unless it effects them or breaks our laws.
All throughout humanity, people would put their sick and ailing animals "out of their misery". They didn't do the same with their relatives...except for a few small tribes. People realize that humans are different than animals, mainly because we have a soul. It always seems to be the most leftist among us who lack humanity for the sanctity of life...all the while preaching moral superiority to we who ask that people take personal responsibility for their lives.
I agree, personal choice is up to you. Little personal story, I had a friend who's father who was one of the top doctor's in his field (cardiology I think) and refused to do any type of chemo when he found he had really advanced cancer. After a great holiday with everyone he went up to his favorite hiking spot, was a huuuge hiker. Without giving anyone even the slightest hint, he went up and shot himself at basically what could be described as a "Lion King outreaching rock" looking at the direction of the sunset, kinda beautiful. Hate to be a cold fiscal "johnson", but we would have saved money by allowing him to do it somewhere in peace instead of having the Rangers find him. To me it's like everything else, personal choice.
One grandmother died of Pneumonia 20 years before I was born and the other grandmother died at age 98 suffering from Dementia, but had she wished to pull the plug herself, I would have been supportive. And I'm a male, so I'm not going to be aborting anything.
you asked which branch of gov could authorize it . What do you mean by branch ? Who else but the same ones who restricted it ?
Assisted suicide in California? Finally, a way out for all those crybabies looking to escape a Trump presidency! - - - Updated - - - It's an issue of people wanting to die and being able to receive medical assistance in doing so, not of relatives putting loved ones "out of their misery"