# Mercy Killing? Euthanasia?  Split From Capt. Semrau Thread



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jan 2010)

I'm pretty sure "mercy killing" is a non-starter defence.  From the information provided thus far, the case has no merit in a criminal sense.  Unless somebody in his team is going to come forward and give some previously unknown information.  I would hope that is not the case.


----------



## mariomike (26 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure "mercy killing" is a non-starter defence.



Mercy killing was Dr Death Kevorkian's defence. They sentenced him to 10-15 years in the Michigan Pen. I don't know if mercy killing is a defence in Canadian courts? It wasn't for Robert Latimer. 
I found this, if interested:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/17566--mercy-killing-a-reasonable-request-or-murder


----------



## Occam (27 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> No, it is not a defense.  Strangely though, we routinely decide when our old people have had it and then put them on a steady diet of morphine with no food or water.  They call it "palliative care".  For whatever reason, it isn't considered murder.  Go figure?   ???
> (for the record, I support mercy killing)



A better example is that we humanely put down our pets when they have no quality of life remaining or to end their suffering, and we call it euthanasia.  

Yet the terminally ill are forced to live out their last days while enduring insufferable pain, or drugged up beyond comprehension.  Something just isn't right there...


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> (for the record, I support mercy killing)


For the record, I believe that the recreational use of marajuana should be legal.  

HOWEVER
Before anyone makes me pee in a bottle, what I think is more important is the rule of law.  I am but one person living in this land, and I get but one vote.  Society has decreed, rightly or wrongly, that the recreational use of marajuana is should be illegal.  Therefore, it is more important that I abide by all laws, not just the laws with which I agree.  As such, when I joined the army back in the 1980s, I was asked if I used marajuana (among other drugs).  I answered "yes".  They told this then-18 year old that I couldn't continue to do so if I were to join up.  I asked if I were allowed to drink.  They said yes, so I shrugged my shoulders and signed up.  I have since complied with the law.
Years later, when doing a security clearance, I was asked if I had ever done marajuana.  I said yes.  He asked why, and my answer was simply that I was a teenager, and I couldn't access beer, so...

Anyway, my point is that shooting an unarmed enemy who is no longer a threat is a clear violation of international law.  I'm not saying that Rob Semrau is guilty or innocent, I'm just talking about an act.  Rob is my friend, and I made it clear to him that I would not discuss the case before him with him.  I also told him that he was my friend no matter what, and I made a point of letting him, and others, know that.  I have no idea what he did out there, and I have made no attempt to find out.  I just hope that he is treated fairly and in accordance with the rule of law.  Whether he is convicted or found not guilty, he will remain my friend.

So, all that being said, I'm not so sure that he is being chucked under the bus, or that he's our version of Breaker Morant.  All I know is that he's been accused of something and he's going before a court martial to decide guilt or innocence.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, my point is that shooting an unarmed enemy who is no longer a threat is a clear violation of international law.



I agree.  My mercy killing comment was a direct comment to my palliative care comment ie) I didn't want people to think I was against palliative care.

However, from what we have heard thus far, there is no evidence to support that Capt Semrau shot an unarmed, wounded person.  Surely there is a witness list out?  He has to have gotten full disclosure of the prosecutions case against him.  If one of the guys from his OMLT team was going to testify against him, I would have thought that information would be out by now.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> A better example is that we humanely put down our pets when they have no quality of life remaining or to end their suffering, and we call it euthanasia.
> 
> Yet the terminally ill are forced to live out their last days while enduring insufferable pain, or drugged up beyond comprehension.  Something just isn't right there...



This is getting off topic (in any case the Captain has not been charged with mercy killing nor has he offered it as a defence), but I take issue with your comparing how we treat pets with how we treat the terminally ill. Pets are not people, they are animals. We can also put pets down when they become an inconvenience to us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jan 2010)

Split this off after several requests.......however I may have missed something as I now have a bald spot from pulling my hair out waiting for the site to process it.
Bruce


----------



## Occam (28 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Split this off after several requests.......however I may have missed something as I now have a bald spot from pulling my hair out waiting for the site to process it.
> Bruce



Thanks, Bruce.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> This is getting off topic (in any case the Captain has not been charged with mercy killing nor has he offered it as a defence), but I take issue with your comparing how we treat pets with how we treat the terminally ill. Pets are not people, they are animals. We can also put pets down when they become an inconvenience to us.



I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to make.  Yes, we can put pets down when they become inconvenient to us, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.  My point was that we show more mercy to pets (which are arguably lesser beings than humans) than we do to our own kind.  Is there room for abuse in assisted suicide/human euthanasia?  You bet, but that can be mitigated with legislation.

My family knows that in the event that I am critically injured to the point where I have no quality of life remaining and am in a vegetative state, that no heroic measures are to be taken to save my life in the event that my medulla oblongata is too stupid to give up.  If it were legal, that would extend to ending my life in a humane way.

edit:  For the record, I have two 13-year-old German Shepherds who I consider part of my family.  They're starting to show their age, and when the time comes, it'll destroy me to have to do it, but they will be euthanized when their pain becomes unmanageable.  Shouldn't humans deserve the same kindness?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Jan 2010)

My point is that there are fundamental differences between dealing with animals and dealing with humans, the principle difference being that we are humans. We buy, sell, kill and euthanize animals. You own your pets. You do not own your relatives. Make your argument for mercy killing, but please don't use principles of pet care when talking about people.

I see a huge difference between DNR orders/ suspension of heroic measures and euthanasia. I completely understand a terminally ill person asking that heroic measures not be taken, or refusing a surgery that may only prolong his life for a little while without any hope of recovery. What I do not support is helping someone actively end their life.


----------



## ballz (28 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> This is getting off topic (in any case the Captain has not been charged with mercy killing nor has he offered it as a defence), but I take issue with your comparing how we treat pets with how we treat the terminally ill. Pets are not people, they are animals. We can also put pets down when they become an inconvenience to us.



The comparison is still very real, whether you take issue with it or not.

In countries where assisted-suicide is legal, the terminally ill can/will have a loved one "put them down" when they become an inconvenience to their family.

Assisted suicide here is illegal, because a majority of people decided it was inhumane and immoral. It is also illegal to euthanize a pet yourself since it could be inhumane if done improperly.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> My point is that there are fundamental differences between dealing with animals and dealing with humans,* the principle difference being that we are humans.* We buy, sell, kill and euthanize animals. You own your pets. You do not own your relatives. Make your argument for mercy killing, but please don't use principles of pet care when talking about people.



What makes us so special?

And who's "we" exactly? If "we" means humans, then "we" buy, sell, kill and euthanize humans too. And yes, "we" own other humans, too.

Now, if "we" is just your perfect image of what a human should be, well, "we" is pretty vague and up for interpretation.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jan 2010)

If you cannot make the mental leap from animal to human, then perhaps you lack that which makes us different: rational thought.
If that's the case, then go join PETA and protest the fact that I cage animals on my property, feed them food that will help them grow, and then have them shot in the forehead, skinned and butchered.  All so that I can enjoy a pork chop or rack of ribs from time to time.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> What makes us so special?
> 
> And who's "we" exactly? If "we" means humans, then "we" buy, sell, kill and euthanize humans too. And yes, "we" own other humans, too.
> 
> Now, if "we" is just your perfect image of what a human should be, well, "we" is pretty vague and up for interpretation.



Since you referred to "us" I'm guessing you know what "we" meant when I was talking about animals and humans. While biologically humans are indeed animals, we do indeed stand apart. We are special, based on our brains and capacity for higher thought. 

Now, to be specific I do imply that "we" humans are acting in an ethical and legal manner when describing our behaviour. So no, we don't buy, sell and own other people. For the purposes of euthanasia I am specifically referring to Canada.

I am all for the humane treatment of animals, but I do not want our standard of ethical/legal treatment of fellow humans to be guided by how we treat animals.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Split this off after several requests.......however I may have missed something as I now have a bald spot from pulling my hair out waiting for the site to process it.
> Bruce



/off topic

Here you go Bruce, maybe this will help..............







 ;D

/on topic


----------



## Brasidas (28 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> My point is that there are fundamental differences between dealing with animals and dealing with humans, the principle difference being that we are humans. We buy, sell, kill and euthanize animals. You own your pets. You do not own your relatives. Make your argument for mercy killing, but please don't use principles of pet care when talking about people.



I see a connection, but let's go ahead and talk about humans alone.




> I see a huge difference between DNR orders/ suspension of heroic measures and euthanasia. I completely understand a terminally ill person asking that heroic measures not be taken, or refusing a surgery that may only prolong his life for a little while without any hope of recovery. What I do not support is helping someone actively end their life.



And why not? There's a hell of a difference between involuntary euthanasia and a rational person choosing not to survive under certain conditions.

My grandfather died in a car crash in the mid-nineties. His corpse stopped breathing last spring. He had a living will stating that extraordinary measures were not to be taken to resuscitate him, and it was done anyway. He spent the next ten years fumbling through whatever means at hand trying to kill himself or have others help him to do so. 

He had severe brain damage, but if he had difficulty articulating it, he still knew what he wanted and I regret not being able to help him to do so.

I see a few degrees of what could be done here:

-a demonstrably lucid, articulate, and responsible person choosing to terminate their life because of extenuating medical circumstances. Disabling pain, and progressive debilitation with no possibility of recovery. This is what I understand Netherlands policy goes by, and which some lobbyists for the disabled view to be unacceptable due to pressure for candidates to choose the option. Paraplegics shouldn't be offered it, but someone who's busy dying a horrible death should.

-a person who is not medically competent to make their own decisions (and will not recover to do so in the future) but who has made such decisions on their behalf against such an event. If buddy's going to be a mental vegetable, let him choose to die. A relative came on the scene in my grandfather's case, and overrode his will. She was aware that his choice hadn't changed, but she just couldn't accept his death. She spent the next ten years wishing she'd hadn't lifted the DNR, and a living will under a modified law might have allowed the corpse to finish dying even after the fact. 

There would need to be a properly documented living will outlining the terms under which the patient could be terminated, and there would need to be no reasonable challenge (eg. sister saying "we'd talked it over the day before the accident and he'd changed his mind).

-Prescribed euthanasia. Bureaucrats developing policies to guide doctors as they decide who lives and dies, which predicted qualities of life are acceptable or not. The end-result of slippery slope arguments against mercy killing.

I don't support the last variant, and the second variant is hard to argue for when the first isn't even accepted as appropriate. 

I accept that most suicidal people are sick and need help. I don't accept that people who are looking at what they themselves consider a miserable, painful life don't have a choice in the matter.


----------



## ballz (28 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If you cannot make the mental leap from animal to human, then perhaps you lack that which makes us different: rational thought.
> If that's the case, then go join PETA and protest the fact that I cage animals on my property, feed them food that will help them grow, and then have them shot in the forehead, skinned and butchered.  All so that I can enjoy a pork chop or rack of ribs from time to time.



Techno, there are more dead animals, and of more variety than one can possibly imagine, in my freezer than any PETA member could take without tofu-pieing my ass. 

The whole thing with humans being "superior" irks me, because our own intelligence is becoming arrogance and holding us back. Just like right now, where assisted-suicide or euthanasia is being called wrong when dealing with humans but not wrong when dealing with animals. Why is it humans feel global warming is "our" fault. Or that animals dying off is "our" fault. That's it's our responsibility to "save the planet?" The very thing that has made us so intelligent is the very reason other animals die off. Darwinism. 

On a lighter note, from a smarter man than I, here are my thoughts exactly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuVFzKypU

[quote author=Tango2Bravo]Now, to be specific I do imply that "we" humans are acting in an ethical and legal manner when describing our behaviour. So no, we don't buy, sell and own other people. For the purposes of euthanasia I am specifically referring to Canada.[/quote]

What about Switzerland? They have the lowest crime rate in the world, maybe they're more evolved than Canadians? They also allow assisted suicide.

[quote author=Tango2Bravo]I am all for the humane treatment of animals, but I do not want our standard of ethical/legal treatment of fellow humans to be guided by how we treat animals.[/quote]

In many ways we treat animals better than we treat each other. It's an effed up world and it will never align. Really it's all just a write-off.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jan 2010)

Regarding "living wills". I can only comment to pre-hospital care in Ontario. 
If the caregivers/family decide to call 9-1-1 at time of death, a “living will” is not acceptable for direction to not perform life-sustaining measures. They have to hand you a valid Ontario Do Not Resuscitate Confirmation Form. That is the only form that can be accepted for direction. It must be with the patient. It must have been issued in Ontario, not another province, state, country.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Jan 2010)

Since this thread is now a net full of red herrings and well and truly diverged from its origin thread, it has been moved to the appropriate pond.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Jan 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And why not? There's a hell of a difference between involuntary euthanasia and a rational person choosing not to survive under certain conditions.



I agree that there is a difference between involuntary euthanasia and a rational person choosing not to survive under certain conditions, but it changes nothing in my argument. The ethical issue for me is not whether a person wants to end their life. My position is that other people should not ethically or legally be allowed to assist them regardless of how compassionate they believe they are being. I agree wholeheartedly that living wills should be honoured. Taking a brain-dead person off a ventilator is a difficult decision but it is not assisted suicide/euthanasia. Actively killing someone who would otherwise live, though, no matter how humane the means or how difficult the existence, is a different matter entirely.

Ballz,

I don't live in Switzerland. They can have their laws.


----------



## ballz (28 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Taking a brain-dead person off a ventilator is a difficult decision but it is not assisted suicide/euthanasia.



It's really not that different. If I were to turn a blind eye to a crime( a rape, a murder) let it happen, not call the police, not try to intervene or do anything to stop it from happening, would that not be the same as me condoning it?

To be assisted-suicide and letting somebody die are the same thing, so to me either they're both wrong, or neither is wrong.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Actively killing someone who would otherwise live, though, no matter how humane the means or how difficult the existence, is a different matter entirely.



Assisted-suicide in Switzerland requires you to be diagnosed terminally ill (so no, you would not "otherwise live") by a doctor, amongst other things, and YOU have to drink the liquid from the cup. That is not actively killing somebody. The assistance is in supplying the liquid, and often times holding the cup for somebody that is unable to hold it themselves.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> no matter <cut> how difficult the existence
> 
> I don't live in Switzerland. They can have their laws.



Both these statements are very narrow-minded and egocentric. I'll bet the Taliban says that about Canadian laws too.



The way I see it, it's my life, and I have the right to live or die it as I see fit, and how I choose to do that is none of your business and yours is none of mine.


----------



## Brasidas (28 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I agree that there is a difference between involuntary euthanasia and a rational person choosing not to survive under certain conditions, but it changes nothing in my argument. The ethical issue for me is not whether a person wants to end their life. My position is that other people should not ethically or legally be allowed to assist them regardless of how compassionate they believe they are being.



If a person watches another person chain themselves to a bridge support at low tide, and stay there until they drown, they're involved in the other person's death. They're agreeing to let them make that choice.

Likewise, a person can stop drinking water, and if no one forces an IV into their arm, they'll eventually die.

A person can die a slow death by dehydration or lack of medication, but it's an ugly, unpleasant way to go. It wouldn't bother my sleep to help somebody die who had some solid reasons to, and I don't see a difference between failing to unextraordinarily intervene and making it easier on the guy. 

The ethical difference I see between letting a guy kill himself by dehydration or lack of treatment and giving him a pill at his own request isn't one I see on the current law's side.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Techno, there are more dead animals, and of more variety than one can possibly imagine, in my freezer than any PETA member could take without tofu-pieing my ass.


:rofl:  Fair enough.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Both these statements are very narrow-minded and egocentric. I'll bet the Taliban says that about Canadian laws too.
> 
> 
> The way I see it, it's my life, and I have the right to live or die it as I see fit, and how I choose to do that is none of your business and yours is none of mine.



Well then. What do you know about the Taliban and what do they have to do with this?

I have said that the Swiss are welcome to their laws. How is that narrow-minded or ego-centric? I am not telling them to change their laws, and they shouldn't be too worried about my views since I don't live in Switzerland. 

As for being narrow-minded, I think I am offering a nuanced view of this issue. I support living wills and DNR orders. There is vast difference between turning off a ventilator for a brain-dead patient and withholding water or oxygen from somebody who is still concious.  

I am not talking about hypothetical situations with someone who had tied themselves below high-tide or threantening to jump off a bridge. Of course you try to save them, and of course I would stop anyone from killing themselves (if I could). 

There are also issues of consent. I respect that somebody has to give consent to medical care (although I am not a health care professional so it is a moot point I suppose). An individual may choose to refuse life-saving surgery for any number of personal reasons. Once again, I see that as different than him actively ending his life.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jan 2010)

My father spent the last six months of his life lying in bed, whacked up on enough morphine to drop an elephant, and when he wasn't in a near coma, he was wracked with pain.  I saw the toll watching someone she loved for 50 years die before her eyes took on my mother.  She is only getting some semblance of her former health back now, 4 years later.  His death at the end was more relief than tragedy.  He had cancer of the everything, was never going to get better, and suffered in pain for six unnecessary months, because someone decided any kind of life was quality of life.  If I was a better son, I would have put a pillow over his face and ended all our suffering, not just his.  That's all you'll get out of me on this one, no need for argument.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jan 2010)

I sympathise with you Kat, I really do.
Just over a year ago, I watched my sister die, and not a day goes by when I think of her.  I was deployed when her cancer flared up and hospitalised her for the last month of her life.  I called her on the Sunday before she died, and she was more worried about me being "over there".  On the Wednesday (?) before she died, I was granted compassionate leave to be with her.  I arrived in Toronto on Friday.  From all accounts, she rebounded (a bit) when she heard I was coming home.  I spent Friday night with her and my neice.  On Saturday she woke up, I fed her breakfast, and then she went to sleep.  She never woke up, drawing her last breath later that evening.
In spite of her pain and suffering, she was my sister, she was alive, and she knew she was surrounded by those who loved her.  She even had her senses about her.  I thanked her for beating up a guy for me when I was in grade 3 (she was in grade 6).  She remembered his name even.  She also gave our older brother a "noogie" that night.  In spite of her pain, she was my sister, and she was alive.  There is no way that I could have ended her suffering for her.
For me, personally, I think it's a very dangerous slope to initiate killing of other humans who pose no risk to others (eg: criminals about to kill innocents, enemies when at war, etc).
But I do respect your opinion and I think I can empathise with it.  But I cannot agree with it.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Of course you try to save them, and of course I would stop anyone from killing themselves (if I could).



I am sure you would be very effective, Sir. I enjoy your posts in the military threads, because even though they are out of my league, I learn from them. Suicide Prevention - of healthy young people - has long been an interest of mine, so I wanted to say that I agree with what say 100%!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2010)

If anyone believes we don't euthanize our own, you know very little about nurses, doctors and morphine.


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Jan 2010)

Perhaps folks interested in this topic should be aware of Bill C-384, a private member's bill presented to amend the Criminal Code which awaits a vote in parliament that has been delayed by prorogation.  Bill C-384 received its first hour of debate on October 2, 2009.  Bill C-384 should have its second hour of debate on March 12 or 15 and could be voted on March 17 or 24.   It is unlikely to succeed (the similar bill C-407 in 2005 did not) but keeps the debate alive in Canada.  It should be understood that in other countries there is a fine line that has been drawn between decriminalized and illegal.  Few countries have made the act legal, they have merely removed it from their Criminal Code.  The not so fine line in the discussion ongoing in this topic/thread is that there has not been an indication of implied or formal consent to end the individual's life.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In spite of her pain, she was my sister, and she was alive.  There is no way that I could have ended her suffering for her.
> For me, personally, I think it's a very dangerous slope to initiate killing of other humans who pose no risk to others (eg: criminals about to kill innocents, enemies when at war, etc).



Fortunately, your sister died with dignity and class.  That is the best case scenario for any of us.  
I have a personal story too.
My grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in mid 1987.  We figured it out because she kept falling down and was losing her memory.  One time she fell and went blind.  That is when she had to go to the home.  She lived for 60 years on Courcellette Road in Scarborough but then got shipped up to the home at McCowan and Lawrence (the name escapes me now).  My grandfather got on the bus, subway, bus to go see her every night.  When he got there, she gave him shit for being late for dinner (she didn't know she wasn't at home).  Then she lost her bodily functions control and got diapered.  Then she got stuck in a chair.  Then my grandfather died from congestive heart failure due to not taking care of himself and going up to the home every night.  Then she fell out of her chair too many times and got stuck in a bed.
For two years.  
For two years the only coherent thing my grandmother was able to say was `I want to die.  Why won`t God let me die`  Funny, I never could come up with a decent answer.  
Two years of staring at ceiling tiles, being sat up, being fed mushy food/shit like a baby, getting a diaper change, being laid back to stare at the ceiling tiles.  
Finally, she got pneumonia.  For four months.  So all of the above, but gurgling in her own fluids, coughing/hacking/choking.  Eventually, it was managing to overtake her rather unnaturally robust system and we were offered that she be given a steady diet of morphine and not given any more food or water.  I`m thinking "WTF! We`re going to dehydrate her to death?!"  I ask why we can`t just give her about 500 cc`s of morphine and have done with it.  I get told `We don`t do mercy killings`.  No, but apparently we are all about the lingering death killings?! Five years from start to finish that process took.  

Doubtless there are as many varied stories as there are rules to govern them.  I just think that as a generality, people need to get over the whole concept of "human life is precious".  Says who?  How about human life is merit based, and at such time as you either a) act like such a douche that you deserve to be deprived of it or b) you have zero physical capacity to enjoy it since life is about living and not just a pulse, measures can be taken to eliminate your burden of living?

IMHO


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Well then. What do you know about the Taliban and what do they have to do with this?
> 
> I have said that the Swiss are welcome to their laws. How is that narrow-minded or ego-centric? I am not telling them to change their laws, and they shouldn't be too worried about my views since I don't live in Switzerland.



What this has to do with the Taliban is that they have the exact same attitude. "The infidels can have their laws, this is our country, and we'll do it as we see fit." Is anybody getting any further ahead from them closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and burying their head in the sand?



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am not talking about hypothetical situations with someone who had tied themselves below high-tide or threantening to jump off a bridge. Of course you try to save them, and of course I would stop anyone from killing themselves (if I could).
> 
> There are also issues of consent. I respect that somebody has to give consent to medical care (although I am not a health care professional so it is a moot point I suppose). An individual may choose to refuse life-saving surgery for any number of personal reasons. Once again, I see that as different than him actively ending his life.



It's a simple question that you haven't answered, what is the difference between letting somebody die and helping somebody terminally ill kill themselves? That is why the hypothetical situations are being brought up. 

Standing by and letting them die is no different in my mind than assisting them in suicide. To me, you either support both, or support neither. So, I say again, *what is the difference between letting somebody die and helping somebody terminally ill that wants to off themself?*

The other question I have (but please answer the other one first), why is it any of your business if somebody else chooses to die instead of suffering for 6 months? Why should you decide that they shouldn't be allowed to? They're not in anyway forcing you to end your life if you're ever in the same situation. They won't care if you choose to suffer for the 6 months, why do you care if they choose not to? What gives you the right to stop them?

And this isn't about "suicide prevention" in the least bit. We're not talking about making it legal to string up a depressed 16 year old by their neck and kick the chair out from in under their legs for them.


----------



## mellian (29 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> A better example is that we humanely put down our pets when they have no quality of life remaining or to end their suffering, and we call it euthanasia.
> 
> Yet the terminally ill are forced to live out their last days while enduring insufferable pain, or drugged up beyond comprehension.  Something just isn't right there...



I agree and support euthanasia on those grounds. On the other hand, can see how it can be abused.


----------



## Occam (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> The other question I have (but please answer the other one first), why is it any of your business if somebody else chooses to die instead of suffering for 6 months? Why should you decide that they shouldn't be allowed to? They're not in anyway forcing you to end your life if you're ever in the same situation. They won't care if you choose to suffer for the 6 months, why do you care if they choose not to? What gives you the right to stop them?



This is where, in my eyes, the euthanasia debate intersects with the abortion debate.  Whether one finds abortion morally wrong or not, the decision to have one or not remains with one person and one person only - the woman carrying the foetus - and the right to choose should be guaranteed by law.  As a man, I feel I have no right to impose my morals on another, even though I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose.

Similarly, assisted suicide/euthanasia is a personal decision, probably the most personal decision of all.  The ability to do so should not be hampered by the morals of uninvolved people.


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Well since we're bringing up abortion, the fact that the pro-life (for both abortion and assisted-suicide/mercy-killing) side of it is LARGELY based on religious reasons (the Bible says it's wrong so you're not allowed to do it), pisses me off more than any other part.

Now you're forcing your religion on somebody else. Isn't that a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

In fairness to T2B, whether his reasons stem from religion or not, he has left religion out of it. EDIT: That being said, I feel the only reason that can answer my question as to "what's the difference between allowing someone to die and helping them die" can be something along the lines of "because the Bible says there is a difference." So I look forward to T2B, or somebody else, bringing something besides that to the table so that this debate can go further.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I just think that as a generality, people need to get over the whole concept of "human life is precious".  Says who?  How about human life is merit based, and at such time as you either a) act like such a douche that you deserve to be deprived of it or b) you have zero physical capacity to enjoy it since life is about living and not just a pulse, measures can be taken to eliminate your burden of living?
> 
> IMHO


My "problem" with this, though I agree that there are those who would be better off dead (*cough* PAUL BERNARDO *cough*) is the whole thing of: who decides?
As for zero physical capacity to enjoy life, imagine Stephen Hawking 100 years ago.  He'd be "put down" under such criteria.  He couldn't communicate with the outside world, and we would view him as a vegetable.  Instead, thanks to technology, he can communicate with us.
This is but one case, and I get that.  There are hundreds, if not thousands in such position as your Grandmother was, right now!  I'm just afraid that handing off the keys to my life "could" be decided by a nanny state, worst case scenario.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm just afraid that handing off the keys to my life "could" be decided by a nanny state, worst case scenario.



Soylent Green?


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My "problem" with this, though I agree that there are those who would be better off dead (*cough* PAUL BERNARDO *cough*) is the whole thing of: who decides?
> As for zero physical capacity to enjoy life, imagine Stephen Hawking 100 years ago.  He'd be "put down" under such criteria.  He couldn't communicate with the outside world, and we would view him as a vegetable.  Instead, thanks to technology, he can communicate with us.
> This is but one case, and I get that.  There are hundreds, if not thousands in such position as your Grandmother was, right now!  I'm just afraid that handing off the keys to my life "could" be decided by a nanny state, worst case scenario.



Well, in *THIS* case, the person was able to decide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWy6pKVendQ

Just something else for us to all comment on.


----------



## Brasidas (29 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My "problem" with this, though I agree that there are those who would be better off dead  is the whole thing of: who decides?



Dead simple. Themselves.

The only outside "decision" should be whether the person is thinking straight.



> As for zero physical capacity to enjoy life, imagine Stephen Hawking 100 years ago.  He'd be "put down" under such criteria.



No, he'd have it as an option.  There's a difference.

[quoe=]He couldn't communicate with the outside world, and we would view him as a vegetable.  Instead, thanks to technology, he can communicate with us.
This is but one case, and I get that.  There are hundreds, if not thousands in such position as your Grandmother was, right now!  I'm just afraid that handing off the keys to my life "could" be decided by a nanny state, worst case scenario.
[/quote]

There's a difference between granting the individual the choice and government-ordered deaths.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well since we're bringing up abortion, the fact that the pro-life (for both abortion and assisted-suicide/mercy-killing) side of it is LARGELY based on religious reasons (the Bible says it's wrong so you're not allowed to do it), pisses me off more than any other part.
> 
> Now you're forcing your religion on somebody else. Isn't that a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


To clear this little fallacy up right now, I'll put my position firmly on my sleeve and then "get into it".  I believe that abortion is immoral.
OK, now that's out of the way...
If opposing abortion for religious reasons is forcing religion on you, then what is PETA doing to me when they smear tofu-pies in the faces of public officials?  What is the leader of (insert political party here) doing when he speaks about anything?  The reason behind someone's belief about anything is secondary to their belief, religious or otherwise.  So, by speaking one's mind, they are *not* forcing their religion on you, they are talking about their own personal moral code.
(As an aside here, like it, lump it or hate it, our moral code in Canada (eg: laws, traditions, etc) is firmly _based upon _ Judeo/Christian ethics.)
Please note that I haven't said why I oppose abortion, but I will do so right now.  Logic tells me that a foetus is as human as an infant, toddler, adult or octogenerian.  (Thinking back to biology 101, I can't remember all the stages of the human form, but I think one is zygote.  Anyway, from conception to death.  Hell, indiginity to a human body is a crime in our country).  Logic also tells me that the feotus, zygote or whatever it may be called in a woman's womb is NOT her body.  It is like a virus: the woman is the host, and this separate life form is living within.  This life form has its own DNA, thoughts, circulatory system, etc, BUT is entirely dependant for its very life upon the host.  Logic tells me that if it is wrong to harm humans without valid cause, then it is wrong to harm the most vulnerable of our species: the unborn (preborn?).  Logic also tells me that if Jane Doe living in Vancouver, BC has an abortion today, it will have ZERO effect upon my life.  But you know what?  So too would zero effect be on me if Haiti has a 9.0 Earthquake today that flushes that country down the toilet (worse than what it is).  But if morality is judged by effect on one's self, then that is egoism, and I'm not an egoist (and that's not a typo: I don't mean egotistical).
There are other reasons why I oppose abortion, but that's enough.  I do NOT believe in the mantra of "My Body, My Choice" (I can feel the parades forming up in my honour now: NOT!).  But you know what else I believe in?  The rule of law.  In Canada, there are no real functioning abortion laws.  I think that's wrong.  But that's the law.  I would like it to change, and if I could, I would change it.  But I can't, so I have to abide by it.
Don't worry, I'm not going to go blow up some abortion doctor's house or throw blood on women going in for abortions.  Those acts are also wrong, and I find them to be hypocritical.
So, in short, people can believe in anything they want for any reason.  If they oppose something for religious reasons, then that's fine too.  I mean, I'm Roman Catholic, but because I say "I oppose abortion" does NOT mean I'm a puppet for the Pope.  I'm a thinking, logical person, and because I speak my mind, I am not trying to convert you.  Am I "forcing" my moral code on you? Though I think "force" is a bit strong, but it may not be entirely inaccurate.  But by supporting abortion, I could argue that others are forcing their moral code on me.

Anyway, just my thoughts, they were free, and probably worth every penny ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Dead simple. Themselves.
> 
> The only outside "decision" should be whether the person is thinking straight.


Dead Simple?  What, no "no pun intended" smiley?  ;D

Of course, the counter is: what if they cannot get their thoughts communicated, and it only appears that they are in a vegetative state?  I mean, to get it wrong, just once....

I'm sorry, but Soylent Green or not (now with butter flavour!), this is one slope down which I think we ought not to venture.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2010)

No offense to those involved but this is NOT a thread about abortion.

That's a whole different ball game with its own thread somewhere.

Bruce


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If opposing abortion for religious reasons is forcing religion on you, *then what is PETA doing to me when they smear tofu-pies in the faces of public officials?*  What is the leader of (insert political party here) doing when he speaks about anything?  The reason behind someone's belief about anything is secondary to their belief, religious or otherwise.



I disagree that the reason is secondary. If the reason was secondary, we wouldn't debate anything. But I do know what you are saying. I cannot say you're reasons are not valid and mine are. That's ok, I can work with that.

Also, PETA is a bad example for you to use since we both know that we both can't stand them and would go to uncertain lengths to choke them with a piece of pie for forcing their beliefs on us.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, by speaking one's mind, they are *not* forcing their religion on you, they are talking about their own personal moral code.
> (As an aside here, like it, lump it or hate it, our moral code in Canada (eg: laws, traditions, etc) is firmly _based upon _ Judeo/Christian ethics.)



Fine and dandy, their own moral code doesn't bother me. What bothers me is, why should their own personal moral rule over my own personal moral code? I suppose we're going to get into whole "well that is democracy" stuff, and the majority is right, but that's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the majority CAN be wrong, so we agree that the majority cannot take away certain basic human rights. 

So to me it comes down to the basic human rights, and the thing to note here is that *an individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin*. My "personal moral code" wouldn't limit another's, the other one does limit mine. So their rights are stepping on mine. You, or T2B, for whatever reasons (like you said, the specific reasons are irrelevant), would be infringing on my basic human rights.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> But by supporting *[abortion/assisted-suicide/mercy killing/ etc etc etc]*, _I could argue that others are forcing their moral code on me._



First, I changed the bolded stuff to keep this all in perspective/on topic/off the topic of abortion. Second, I disagree with what's italicized for this reason:

Somebody supporting abortion/assisted-suicide/mercy killing/ etc etc etc, is not forcing you to abort your kid, assist in killing a loved one of yours, or killing somebody you feel deserves mercy. So they are not forcing anything on you. *IF* they did start forcing you to do that, I'd be the first person to slap em around a little for you until you could get your hands on them :nod:


----------



## Occam (29 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No offense to those involved but this is NOT a thread about abortion.
> 
> That's a whole different ball game with its own thread somewhere.
> 
> Bruce



Mea culpa.  I brought it up because there are definitely some points in common to the two issues, and religion plays a big part of those points.  It took a long time for abortion to be legalized in Canada, and I think it'll likely take a long time for euthanasia/assisted suicide to be legalized/decriminalized as well.  Getting the issue out on the table is the first step...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2010)

No problem but, from past experience, I just know THAT topic will smother this topic and I will end up splitting them again.....


....and I'm lazy.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Fine and dandy, their own moral code doesn't bother me. What bothers me is, why should their own personal moral rule over my own personal moral code? I suppose we're going to get into whole "well that is democracy" stuff, and the majority is right, but that's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the majority CAN be wrong, so we agree that the majority cannot take away certain basic human rights.


I could counter with "Well, _your_ moral code bothers _me_", stick my tongue out and walk away; however, that is my point exactly.  Society has a code of "values", encoded in laws, charters, etc.  If there is a law/charter or what have you with which I disagree, then I campaign to change it.  Homosexuals changed the very definition of "marriage" in this country.  How?  By challenging the existing "code".  Parliament bought their flavour aid, and now men marry other men.


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Somebody supporting /mercy killing/ etc etc etc, is not forcing you assist in killing a loved one of yours, or killing somebody you feel deserves mercy. So they are not forcing anything on you.


Faulty logic.  By that logic, since Paul Bernardo's raping and killing spree in the 1990s had *ZERO* effect on me, does that mean I have no right to say "You know what?  Raping and then killing your wife's sister is probably a bad thing, and I think it should be illegal.  I also think that it's probably wrong to hack up the body, encase it in cement and then drop it in the drink.  Oh, and videotaping it is a no-brainer: don't even go there!"?  

The thing about "ethics", "morality", or even just "right/wrong", "good/evil" is that people (you and I included) do care about things that have no effect on us personally, simply because it's the right thing to do. Perhaps Kant was right in talking about "universalisation" and all that jazz.


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Did Paul Bernardo's actions step over SOMEBODY's rights? ANYBODY's? Yes. They did. The victim's "right to life." That's is why it was illegal. It may have had zero effect on YOU, but the same couldn't be said for everybody.

The reason homosexuals got the definition of marriage changed was *not* by changing anything, but applying the already existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which outlines basic human rights. They argued that the current laws that were in place was against their basic human rights, and Supreme Court of Canada agreed. 

Whether 99% of Canadians were strong devoted Catholics and disagreed with Gay Marriage was irrelevant, because it was against their right as a human being. The majority was wrong. If we were at war with an African country and the majority of Canadians wanted to put all the blacks in jail in case they were spies, that would violate the basic human rights of those human beings so it would not be allowed (although it has been in the past... :-\).

And right now, I'm making the same argument for assisted-suicide / mercy killing. If there's one thing I've got a right to as a human being, it's dying. If I have any right, it is the right to die, if nothing else. Any law that tells me I can't die as I please to, as long as I don't infringe on anybody elses basic human rights, is, according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an unjust law.

It's not about my moral code bothering you, it's your moral infringing on my basic human right. Quite frankly, you can't make the argument that assisted-suicide does anything to infringe on your basic human rights (whether it bothers you or not). I can make the argument that a law stopping me from ending my own misery does infringe on my rights.

To bring it back to the gay marriage comparison, gay marriage, while it may bother some people, does not infringe on anybody's rights. Not allowing gays to get married does infringe on somebody's rights. 

Same s**t, different pile.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, the only argument that anti-gay marriage activists had to stand on, is that marriage is a religious ceremony, so they were trying to argue that *forcing* them to recognize a homosexual marriage, and to marry homosexuals, was infringing on their basic human right which is "freedom of religion." They did have a leg to stand on, although they lost.

In this case of assisted-suicide / mercy killing, that argument does not apply. It's not forcing somebody who doesn't believe in it to do it. There are no legs to stand on IMO.


----------



## observor 69 (29 Jan 2010)

Some thoughts:
A number of my family members are nurses in critical care( ICU and Emerg.).
Aside from an argument over mercy killing/euthanasia what they experience on a regular basis is the "quality of life" aspect.
People who without any question have "zero" quality of life due to age, disease etc..
As nurses they have to watch a person continue in this state prolonged by medicine and technology and compounded by family members being indecisive about DNR status.
I have heard the arguments for years but the reality for many nurses is patients who experience a miserable slow exit from "this mortal coil".


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> What this has to do with the Taliban is that they have the exact same attitude. "The infidels can have their laws, this is our country, and we'll do it as we see fit." Is anybody getting any further ahead from them closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and burying their head in the sand?
> 
> It's a simple question that you haven't answered, what is the difference between letting somebody die and helping somebody terminally ill kill themselves? That is why the hypothetical situations are being brought up.
> 
> ...



You should drop your Taliban and Swiss red herrings. You have been introducing them to the argument. My point is that we are not debating how the Swiss should handle this issue. They have their laws and we have ours. They have their underlying political consensus and we have ours. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

As for your questions, I will lay it out my ethical code. I believe that people must consent to have medical procedures performed on them. I believe that it is wrong to help someone take their own life. By the same token it is wrong to take someones life (unless in self-defence or war etc). I am focused here on actions. I also believe that our brain is "us." If the brain is dead we are dead.

By my logic, a person can choose to refuse lifesaving medical procedures. The ethical requirement to obtain consent to perform an action overides any ethical requirement to provide medical care. Thus, it is the individuals right to consent to interventions that is trumping my obligation to help that person. I watch him die, but it is only because he is refusing treatment and I am placing his individual freedom higher than my ethical requirement (a legal requirement may not exist) to help prevent his death. The hospital is withholding care, but only at the request of the individual. I see this as fundamentally different than performing an action that results in death (ie. introducing a poison). 

You are saying that watching someone die is the same as killing them, and I don't necessarily see it that way. It would be wrong to encourage a person standing on a bridge preparing to suicide to jump, or to suggest a more lethal point of departure, or to offer to push if he asks me to (he doesn't quite have the nerve and he wants some assistance). Those actions would be unethical and illegal. Watching it happen, especially if he is refusing assistance, is tragic but not the same as actively assisting. While there are certainly crimes of ommision, they usually deal with the failure to perform some mandated duty. While I stop at accident scenes and will ask a distraught stranger at a busstop or airport what is wrong, I am under no obligation to do so. 

In the case of a person on a ventilator without any brain activity (I'm not a doctor), the difficult decision to remove the ventilator may seem like it is killing that person. If the patient cannot breathe on their own and has no brain activity, though, I believe that they are dead. We are removing the medical intervention that is keeping the rest of their tissues alive. This is not the same thing as smothering him, or removing all the oxygen from his room when he would have otherwise been able to breathe on his own. 

Similarly, starving someone is a crime. The ethical dilemma occurs when someone chooses to starve themselves (either overtly or covertly). I use dilemma because there is a choice between two negative outcomes. Again, barring other information I weigh on the side of the individuals consent and would not force-feed someone.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2010)

(Keeping on target: therefore I've re-written this post a few times).
I get what you guys are saying.  I do.  I just think that using terms such as "quality of life" to determine if someone should live or not.  The slope is both steep and slippery, and when dealing with human life, we ought to tread carefully. I mean, the extreme, and I mean EXTREME is to unilaterally declare that so-and-so's life is of zero quality, and therefore we ought to end it.  

OK, so, the person decides, we give them the revolver, and we leave the room.  Ah, but so-and-so is too weak to operate a gun.  No worries, here's a razor blade.  So-and-so has no arms?  Hmm...this is a dilly of a pickle....When does going to someone and ending their life "on their behalf" become mercy, and taking another's life stop being murder?  I hate to invoke Godwin here, but some salacious regimes in the past have also endorsed euthanasia.  The whole thing is one large Pandora's box, and I'd rather keep it closed, thank you very much.


As for youth in Asia, well, that's a different story ;D


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> You should drop your Taliban and Swiss red herrings. You have been introducing them to the argument. My point is that we are not debating how the Swiss should handle this issue. They have their laws and we have ours. They have their underlying political consensus and we have ours. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.



The Swiss are very relevant to this debate and how you can try and ignore it is beyond me. It is a culture not too far from our own that has legalized assisted-suicide and has established guidelines.

Furthermore, if you don't care that the Swiss do it, why do you give a rat's ass if somebody in Newfoundland does it? Or if somebody down the street does it? THAT is no more your business than somebody in Switzerland doing, and doesn't affect you anymore than that either. What is the fricken difference? Neither is forcing you to consent to anything you don't want to do.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am placing his individual freedom higher than my ethical requirement



And what is it exactly you are doing when you prevent a man from ending his own pro-longed suffering by speeding up his inevitable death? You certainly aren't respecting his freedom to make up his own mind then.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> You are saying that watching someone die is the same as killing them, and I don't necessarily see it that way. *It would be wrong to encourage a person standing on a bridge preparing to suicide to jump, or to suggest a more lethal point of departure, or to offer to push if he asks me to (he doesn't quite have the nerve and he wants some assistance). Those actions would be unethical and illegal.* Watching it happen, especially if he is refusing assistance, is tragic but not the same as actively assisting. While there are certainly crimes of ommision, they usually deal with the failure to perform some mandated duty. While I stop at accident scenes and will ask a distraught stranger at a busstop or airport what is wrong, I am under no obligation to do so.



Okay, cut this crap. That is a ridiculous example of assisted suicide. When I made that comparison I was specifically saying "If you don't intervene in that scenario, it is wrong, and you are just as guilty as if you killed him yourself" and you know that's what I was saying. Don't try and take that analogy and compare it to this.

We are talking about legalizing it for a consenting terminally ill person, who is going to die regardless, but is suffering a prolonged, painful, and indignified death, and is unable to commit the deed themself because of physical limitations. 

What is the difference in this person, who is doomed anyway, consenting to be terminated because "if I could do it myself, I would," and unplugging a ventilator due to prior consent being given????



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> *I weigh on the side of the individuals consent* and would not force-feed someone.



I'm hoping you don't understand me as much as I'm not understanding you so that I can take comfort in the fact that we're just not getting through to each other due to communication barriers or something. Quite frankly I'm officially giving up.

You're all about an individual's consent yet if someone is literally begging to have their life ended due to the physical pain and agony they are suffering, you think it's more ethical to ignore their consent and last wishes and let them suffer? I give up.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I just think that using terms such as "quality of life" to determine if someone should live or not.  The slope is both steep and slippery, and when dealing with human life, we ought to tread carefully. I mean, the extreme, and I mean EXTREME is to unilaterally declare that so-and-so's life is of zero quality, and therefore we ought to end it.



The PERSON has to determine this. Nobody else's opinion matters. This is not a bunch of family members sitting around deciding whether to off their loved one or not. They have no say. It is their loved one that decided it. I hope you both watched the damn video I posted because it does not seem so.  




			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> OK, so, the person decides, we give them the revolver, and we leave the room.  Ah, but so-and-so is too weak to operate a gun.  No worries, here's a razor blade.  So-and-so has no arms?  Hmm...this is a dilly of a pickle....When does going to someone and ending their life "on their behalf" become mercy, and taking another's life stop being murder?  I hate to invoke Godwin here, but some salacious regimes in the past have also endorsed euthanasia.  The whole thing is one large Pandora's box, and I'd rather keep it closed, thank you very much.



As was done in the video that I posted, hold a cup and a straw with a lethal dose of a drug in it up to the person's mouth. If they drink it, they go to sleep and die. No revolvers or arms needed. If they're at the point that they can't drink under their own power, they're probably at the point where you can unplug a few things and let them die anyway.

The act of giving them a loaded revolver and walking out of the room, and holding a cup of poison to their mouth with a straw, is not different. In both cases, it is assisted suicide. It is also assisted suicide if there's no poison around, and the person has no arms, and he consents to you shooting him, so you do. Quite honestly, poison or bullet, or any other method, is irrelevant.

It becomes murder when the person doesn't want you to shoot them in the head, or doesn't want to drink the poison, and you shoot them or force the poison down their throat.

The key factor here is obviously CONSENT.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Similarly, starving someone is a crime. The ethical dilemma occurs when someone chooses to starve themselves (either overtly or covertly). I use dilemma because there is a choice between two negative outcomes. Again, barring other information I weigh on the side of the individuals consent and would not force-feed someone.



The wife and I were watching NCIS the other night and Ducky said the Bread and Water punishment was not to starve the prisoner, but to turn the bread into a brick like substance inside your digestive tract. Maybe that's where the term "- - - - a brick" came from? 
My understanding is that you can be force fed under the Mental Health Act. Political hunger strikes are another matter.
Regarding Force Feeding, this is what Wiki has to say on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-feeding


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> The Swiss are very relevant to this debate and how you can try and ignore it is beyond me. It is a culture not too far from our own



Are you frikkin' kidding me?   Everything else you typed was skimmed over after reading this kife.

Starting out a discussion by comparing us to one of the most xenophobic societies in the free world isn't the best way to get the right attention.


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Never heard anything about Swiss xenophobia until now. Never actually heard of the word xenophobia now too.

I always thought they were known as a "haven of peace and neutrality." I'll keep reading of course.

So I've written like 8 or 9 lengthy posts in this discussion and I wrote one apparently ignorant statement so nothing I say is now credible? 

Sorry I'm not perfect bud.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2010)

No, but when you have someone like myself who would be considered a 'swing voter",  words, or especially the way they can be taken, can mean a lot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2010)

Folks

Time to sum up. As happens everytime this, and a couple of other (abortion) subjects comes up, it ends up in a slugfest.

We've been through this stuff before and no one gets their minds changed, or enlightened. You've all dragged your same arguements around and around, with no added points or weight.

It only degrades into an internet 'Oh Yeah?' 'Yeah!' arguement. It normally ends with people on warning.

So once again, sum up. This one is heading for a lock also, before the inevitable happens.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

Well they have 4 national languages, immigration rate not far from our own, 20-25% of the workforce were not born in Switzerland, and they're politically neutral. I see things like "haven for peace" showing up quite often.

Everything I do see about them and xenophobia seems to be talking just as much about the UK, France, etc. as the Swiss.

I'll keep reading but I dunno doesn't seem like they're planning the next holocaust by any means.

-------------------------

RG, I'm done/satisfied. My thoughts are pretty clear and don't need another synopsis.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Furthermore, if you don't care that the Swiss do it, why do you give a rat's *** if somebody in Newfoundland does it? Or if somebody down the street does it? THAT is no more your business than somebody in Switzerland doing, and doesn't affect you anymore than that either. What is the fricken difference? Neither is forcing you to consent to anything you don't want to do.
> 
> And what is it exactly you are doing when you prevent a man from ending his own pro-longed suffering by speeding up his inevitable death? You certainly aren't respecting his freedom to make up his own mind then.
> 
> ...



I see that this is getting summed up, but I will try to clear up my position and then exit the stage. I would ask in the future, though, that you refrain from the rather insulting tone that you took towards the end.

I care about Newfoundland because it is part of Canada. I am a Canadian. I care about what goes on down the street because it is in Canada. I am interested in what other cultures do, but just because another culture does or doesn't do something doesn't mean that I have follow suite. We should judge based on our own situation - not a foreign nation. 

Regarding consent, there is a world of difference between my respecting an individual's withholding of consent to perform a life-saving procedure on him and my accepting his consent for me to kill him. Just because I don't give in to someone's wishes for me to take an action doesn't automatically mean that I am violating their freedom of choice. I argue that while it is ethical to seek consent for medical care it is unethical to agree to someone's asking to kill them. Both involve choices, but there are different actions involved. In the first he is telling me not to do something. In the other, he is asking me to do something. 

By the ethical code that I am trying to articulate, I respect the individual's decision on the provision of care/assistance.  His desire for me to end his life for him, though, does not free me from the ethical code that we don't go around killing people except in self-defence/war. 

The individual is free to decide that they want to die. I am not going to help them, however, on the ethical grounds that I have laid out above. Perhaps you think I am hard-hearted or uncaring about suffering? Many ethical decisions involve two unattractive outcomes. 

I would respect a request by someone to let nature takes its course, which is basically what someone withholding consent is doing. What I wouldn't do is sanction action on our part to intervene with the goal of killing the individual who would otherwise live without our suicide-assistance intervention.

Cheers


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Everything I do see about them and xenophobia seems to be talking just as much about the UK, France, etc. as the Swiss.



Let's give that the Google test:

Results 1 - 20 of about 1,160,000 for *switzerland xenophobic.*

Results 1 - 20 of about 300,000 for *"united kingdom" xenophobic*

Results 1 - 20 of about 262,000 for *france xenophobic*

Results 1 - 20 of about 179,000 for *canada xenophobic*


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2010)

I apologise for taking this off the natural path once or twice, but I'll sum up, and in no way do I wish to denegrate anyone or their position.
My position is solely that life is special, and taking a life is something that is a very serious matter.  As for Euthanasia, I do believe that others have made good points that counter my beliefs.  Even though I would support capital punishment, I cannot for the life of me condone euthanasia.  If it were the case, to get back to Capt Semrau for a moment, then I *could* see the argument that he was committing an act of mercy, and not murder *IF  *  (HUGE IF) he did indeed fire rounds into a dying Talib.
Anyway, IMHO, other than the odd tangent, I am rather well pleased with this thread overall, and I commend the moderators for actually moderating us and keeping us on target.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2010)

You're all welcome.

That's it Gents.........til the next time 

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

