<Snipped quote by Penny>
No, I don't want suicide. Period.
Great don't commit suicide. Picking for others is kind of playing god...
And I also already mentioned lawsuits...
I care about peoples suffering, don't really care about lawsuits.
Great don't commit suicide. Picking for others is kind of playing god...
I care about peoples suffering, don't really care about lawsuits.
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
4 hrs ago
@Penny That's a twist on words that also doesn't make much sense...it's like telling others not to kill people is playing god...oh wait that is what that is isn't it? Better let the murderers go free...
Hyperbole is hyperbole, but is also being acknowledged as such.
Frivolous lawsuits and the cost of suicide leads to others suffering. But suicide is selfish, so you usually don't care about others when doing it. (And since it's often done because of emotional stuff like that. It's also very ironic too.)
Note: I've been suicidal before, I don't need a circle jerk comment about me being lectured about not getting it. Please? Not saying you. Just laying out the groundwork for the next possible comment.
Hyperbole is hyperbole, but is also being acknowledged as such.
Frivolous lawsuits and the cost of suicide leads to others suffering. But suicide is selfish, so you usually don't care about others when doing it. (And since it's often done because of emotional stuff like that. It's also very ironic too.)
Note: I've been suicidal before, I don't need a circle jerk comment about me being lectured about not getting it. Please? Not saying you. Just laying out the groundwork for the next possible comment.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
3 yrs ago
.
2x Like
OP
Dolerman Chrysalis Form
Member
Seen
3 mos ago
The MDK/Sleeping Silence religous debate playbook:
tl;dr - A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”
At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.
”How old is this rock, pinhead?”
The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”
”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!
The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.
tl;dr - A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”
At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.
”How old is this rock, pinhead?”
The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”
”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!
The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.
1x Laugh
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
4 hrs ago
@Dynamo Frokane But? I'm not debating about religion like that or like anyone on here. Don't group me with peeps. If you think I have a negative outlook on Christianity, or even religion as a concept. You have it incredibly off base. Also the 5,000 year thing was never said in the bible. Now I'm even more confused, are you saying this is a debate between MDK/me or both of us arguing for? Or against? None of it makes sense. Halp.
@Penny That's a twist on words that also doesn't make much sense...it's like telling others not to kill people is playing god...oh wait that is what that is isn't it? Better let the murderers go free...
Hyperbole is hyperbole, but is also being acknowledged as such.
Frivolous lawsuits and the cost of suicide leads to others suffering. But suicide is selfish, so you usually don't care about others when doing it. (And since it's often done because of emotional stuff like that. It's also very ironic too.)
Note: I've been suicidal before, I don't need a circle jerk comment about me being lectured about not getting it. Please? Not saying you. Just laying out the groundwork for the next possible comment.
So an individual dosen't have the right to kill themselves in your mind? Or your just for 100% DIY?
If someone absolutely wants to die, and someone else wants to make a buck off giving others that absolutely want to die a way out of life, let them. Populations will most likely gradually lose their predispositions towards suicidal behavior, due to evolution. Productivity lost due to failed suicide attempts, and the costs of subsequent treatment and welfare program usage, will also decline. That's good for society as a whole.
As for the philosophical aspects of the debate, I'll say that I think every action and nonaction is selfish, including altruism, as you're imposing your will onto reality. Being selfish is okay, so long as you don't harm others. People have also been playing god ever since they domesticated other creatures, so I find "don't do X because [religion]" arguments amusing.
I broadly agree, although most people who go for PA suicide in countries were it is legal are terminal cancer patients who have well past the reproductive age so the effect on the genepool is uncertain.
1x Thank
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
4 hrs ago
So an individual dosen't have the right to kill themselves in your mind? Or your just for 100% DIY?
No, sorry. You don't "have that right." Disregarding religion, and the fact most suicide isn't successful and this mystical dying of death disease isn't the highest percentage of why people do try committing suicide. It's almost always linked to mental health and it's often something that CAN be treated. Suicide is reckless, because it will inherently cost another person money, suffering and time dealing with it.
lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics
Here's even, Huffpo explaining why it's not a good idea through a progressive lense.
huffingtonpost.com/ana-acton/the-prog…
Here's another. But someone you may be able to take seriously.
thecompassionatechoice.com/articles/3…
Reason #18- No on Assisted Suicide
October 21
Today’s AD-Assisted suicide laws put poor people at risk.
This is the Martin Sheen argument against assisted suicide. He is making radio ads in Washington partly because he believes that assisted suicide laws will put poor people and those without health insurance at an extreme disadvantage within the medical system. Think of the money we’d save on CAT scans, x-rays, medicine, nursing care, rehabilitation, disability payments, etc if we had this cheap alternative: suicide.
Martin Sheen is right.
Reason #16- No on Assisted Suicide
October 19
Today’s AD-The first Nazi victims were terminally ill people.
The Nazi party used very emotional propaganda films about terminally ill people who needed the compassion of assisted suicide. Today we Americans are watching similar movies like “Million Dollar Baby,” which got the 2004 Academy Award for Best Picture. The most effective Nazi film told the heart-breaking story of a doctor’s wife who begged her husband to kill her.
Once they sold the German people on assisted suicide and had some doctors on board, the Nazi party moved into the concept of “useless eaters.” Germany was in a terrible depression in the 1930s, worse than America’s. “Useless eaters” were criminally insane, severely handicapped children, very very elderly, etc. Once they eliminated “useless eaters,” the Nazis went on to killing —- well, you’ve got the idea.
For more information, go to article “Hitler, the Nazis and Four Arguments Against Assisted Suicide.”
Reason #30- No on Assisted Suicide
Sunday, November 2
Today’s AD-Some terminally ill people recover and get well.
A hospice nurse told me about a lovely 24-year-old given three months to live. Five years later, she is still with us and the mother of a child.
Every good doctor knows that medicine is an art as well as a science. No one can predict with 100% certainty who will live and who will die. Although it is rare, some terminally ill people can and do get better. Everyone who works in hospice can tell you at least one story attesting to that. They personally knew a patient who beat the odds and is still vertical today.
Offer them suicide and you take everything away from them. You take away hope. You take away their lives.
Reason 29: No on Assisted Suicide
Saturday, November 1
Today’s Ad: Doctors make mistakes in medical care.
This week, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld a $4 million award to the family of a woman misdiagnosed with cancer and then given a lethal dose of painkillers.The 66-year-old woman received massive doses of painkillers at a hospice for cancer, which an autopsy showed she never had, according to court records.
That’s just this week’s news. It happens all the time.
For more horror stories from families who suffered this way, see kaiserpapers.org.
The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, reports that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States at 225,000 deaths per year. Half are medical mistakes, including 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; and 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals.
Do you want to give doctors the right to administer suicide medications? Hey, mistakes happen.
Here's more.
mccl.org/case-against-assisted-suicide
You have no argument but a grandstanding emotional argument. But your morality is backwards, if you think you can lecture me about not wanting/allowing those to commit a willing act of murder on the innocent.
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
4 hrs ago
@catchamber I refer you to all the information I sent Penny. No. Nay. Persona Non Grata.
No one can predict with 100% certainty who will live and who will die.
100% of people will die. At least so far...
Suicide is reckless, because it will inherently cost another person money, suffering and time dealing with it.
So are a great many things.
Assisted suicide as the thin end of the wedge for nazism? Now that you mention it Hitler did commit sucicide...
Mistakes happen? People sometimes die due to surgery and medication mix ups. Better stop doing those, its playing god anyway.
At best these are arguments to not have a shitty system.
People do have the right to decide to end their lives, they do it all the time. THey sign DNRs, they refuse treatment ect.
Also you cannot practically stop people from taking their own lives. They shoot themselves, jump of bridges, hang themselves ect. You cant stop suicide. If you want to argue that more money and effort should go into mental health and education to prevent it, great i'm on board. But if someone honestly wants to end their life the least we can do is let them do it with a little dignity. Also the success rate will go WAY up, since that is apparently one of your objections.
I think I'm going to stop using commit suicide and start using take their own life. Its a bit clunkier but also a little less judgmental.
I should also point out that there would certainly be a prescription process for obtaining the meds to end a life and you could easily build in counseling and other treatment as necessary precursors for ending your life, really not going to be an over the counter thing.
I should also point out that there would certainly be a prescription process for obtaining the meds to end a life and you could easily build in counseling and other treatment as necessary precursors for ending your life, really not going to be an over the counter thing.
Mistiel Edgier than a Sphere
Banned
Seen
5 yrs ago
I think I'm going to stop using commit suicide and start using take their own life. Its a bit clunkier but also a little less judgmental.
Or you could just use the phrase "turning Penny into quarters." ;)
3x Laugh
@IceHeart
Am I correct in assuming you believe in a literal hell?
A good question to be sure. I actually do not believe in a literal hell as many other Christians do. No, you will not be burning forever in torment because you didn't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. What will actually happen is that you will just die. Cease to exist and become nothing, sort of like a forever, dreamless sleep, though of course with no chance of waking up.
It is eternal erasure that will happen to those who don't follow, not eternal torment.
2x Thank
OP
Dolerman Chrysalis Form
Member
Seen
3 mos ago
@Dynamo Frokane But? I'm not debating about religion like that or like anyone on here. Don't group me with peeps. If you think I have a negative outlook on Christianity, or even religion as a concept. You have it incredibly off base. Also the 5,000 year thing was never said in the bible. Now I'm even more confused, are you saying this is a debate between MDK/me or both of us arguing for? Or against? None of it makes sense. Halp.
1x Laugh
DONCHU TALK NO SHIT ABOUT BIBLEMAYNG!
The Harbinger of Ferocity
Member
Seen
2 yrs ago
I believe, correct me if I am wrong, is that part of the issue being taken with assisted suicide is that it might all be well and good for the person in question, a mantra I do not ascribe to myself but I am not about to impose on others, is it has ongoing ramifications for those who are still alive thereafter. A person could reasonably do it themselves without the assistance, this we are all aware of, but the aid makes the process easier; having somewhere there with you even if not friend or relative makes dying less painful to some extent. It makes the choice less difficult and the looming threat of failure, as well as presumed punishment, ostracization, belittlement, reprimand, whatever, a factor that is non-existent. It lowers the inherent thresholds of opposition that the mind should regularly be using to push back with - it makes death a more simple alternative than it already is. Yet suicide is not just about the individual in question taking their own life under their own volition, though it is entirely a valid argument that it is not always voluntary due to psychological compromise and duress, but the other people who are alive after.
Some of us have experienced the violent deaths and or suicides in person, which is to say that is obviously more traumatic than finding someone dead beside their bed with a bottle of pills or in the hypothetical case, a doctor's office where they were effectively euthanized. People by and large do not deal with death well, meaning that the person surrendering their life and voiding it could well do it against the consent of others who now become responsible for everything, be it the funeral, to debt, to children or spouses, to their pets, et cetera. The assisted suicide might be easier, given this is a clinical procedure and action, but the overall implications would be absolutely mired in a spiderweb of legal actions that others would willingly need to undertake for the to-be-departed member in question. The majority of people would not agree to this as they often care or even love other people enough to not want to lose them, but also because they do not want to assume more responsibility.
To step back for a moment and ponder upon it, let us say such a system existed where you did not need to gain the agreement of those people to do so. Again, the member undertaking the assisted suicide process is forcing their decision upon others unwillingly; unless they consented to dealing with the events after, as in accepted the risk and responsibility, the action that is already selfish still is... just slightly less so. Let us continue in another hypothetical where one could choose to allow the clinic performing the procedure to assume the responsibility, but at what cost? Those vulnerable to suicide are already compromised, meaning they might well surrender that which is not theirs to or worse for them, be unable to afford any of it or offer such a legal transfer of authority. No less, is it not somewhat morally questionable at all tiers that in this example, people trade quite a bit of what they own to die outright when they themselves are not in the right state of mind?
There are greater issues with this proposal than I believe are being admitted and I have not so much as sunk my teeth into them here as my point is more about the people left behind, which is where I think greater issue is taken. For myself, I do not disagree with allowing people to commit suicide - there is only so much you can do to prevent them from choosing the final option - but at the same time I will not condone or encourage the behavior, let alone as a practice which will only reasonably still harm others in the process despite it being "nicer" to look at or think about. That shiny veneer is an illusion, a distraction.
Some of us have experienced the violent deaths and or suicides in person, which is to say that is obviously more traumatic than finding someone dead beside their bed with a bottle of pills or in the hypothetical case, a doctor's office where they were effectively euthanized. People by and large do not deal with death well, meaning that the person surrendering their life and voiding it could well do it against the consent of others who now become responsible for everything, be it the funeral, to debt, to children or spouses, to their pets, et cetera. The assisted suicide might be easier, given this is a clinical procedure and action, but the overall implications would be absolutely mired in a spiderweb of legal actions that others would willingly need to undertake for the to-be-departed member in question. The majority of people would not agree to this as they often care or even love other people enough to not want to lose them, but also because they do not want to assume more responsibility.
To step back for a moment and ponder upon it, let us say such a system existed where you did not need to gain the agreement of those people to do so. Again, the member undertaking the assisted suicide process is forcing their decision upon others unwillingly; unless they consented to dealing with the events after, as in accepted the risk and responsibility, the action that is already selfish still is... just slightly less so. Let us continue in another hypothetical where one could choose to allow the clinic performing the procedure to assume the responsibility, but at what cost? Those vulnerable to suicide are already compromised, meaning they might well surrender that which is not theirs to or worse for them, be unable to afford any of it or offer such a legal transfer of authority. No less, is it not somewhat morally questionable at all tiers that in this example, people trade quite a bit of what they own to die outright when they themselves are not in the right state of mind?
There are greater issues with this proposal than I believe are being admitted and I have not so much as sunk my teeth into them here as my point is more about the people left behind, which is where I think greater issue is taken. For myself, I do not disagree with allowing people to commit suicide - there is only so much you can do to prevent them from choosing the final option - but at the same time I will not condone or encourage the behavior, let alone as a practice which will only reasonably still harm others in the process despite it being "nicer" to look at or think about. That shiny veneer is an illusion, a distraction.
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
4 hrs ago
@Penny That wasn't my quote. It also is taking a sentence out of context. It's not even saying, what you're mocking it for. It's only saying nobody can predict when people will live and die. Because as it said in it's very next sentence, some people on the verge of death get better. It's factoring time, not the finality of death. (Though the link, which I know you didn't click or you wouldn't have bothered with that since it points that out later on.) So you nitpicking this random sentence (incorrectly) genuinely made me want to disregard you entirely.
But since you've made like several outlandish statements against me, I feel justified in giving you this response.
People doing it all the time, doesn't give them the right to it. It's literally illegal and a crime. And not stopping them isn't a justifiable answer either. And we already actively do that as a society, as best as possible. Like all crimes. Just because we cannot stop all rapists, doesn't mean it's not a crime. This "it's my right to kill what's inconvenient to me" is the same argument I see with abortion and it's also just as wrong. This isn't based in anything but your emotions. (which while I'm bringing that up...)
Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. And what made it ten times worse, is you aren't even trying to pretend there's a legal/moral grey area anymore. You're not weighing pro's and con's whatsoever. You barely seem to give a damn how vast the list of evidence goes on. You're making this a black and white case. But that stubborn opinion is so ass backwards. You tried to cast me as the black, multiple times.
And the white in this scenario, is wanting someone to kill themselves and allowing people to commit willing acts of murder...(that's the GOOD side.) And the black's crime is wanting survival and that not to happen as much as possible.
I would have agreed to disagree long ago, but you're so incorrect. That when I point out how gun to the head suicide doesn't work. You make a statement along the lines of. "Well do you just want people to buy guns at walmart to kill themselves? You sick fuck." No, have you been reading a word I've typed? But you certainly seem to...(You're attributing motives to direct contradictions and making hypocritical statements.) Now, even though you just got through a negative scenario about a way of suicide you wanted to pin on me. Now, you're trying to say "I don't want to sound judgmental."
Give a break. Suicide is worth judging. Because it's selfish. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we got into defending suicide bombers next. Why not? It's their right according to you? Can't stop people like that, they happen all the time. (I'll even add a qualifier you never did, it can only destroy buildings. No innocent lives can get caught in the crossfire.) Because whether you meant to or not. You literally just advocated for increasing the suicide rate, and you gave no qualifiers on who shouldn't kill themselves. Or even ways that could destroy property or become easily public, as selfish bitter cries for attention. (like jumping off of buildings.) So I'm sure if we gave every emotionally irrational teen, an affordable free healthcare and then allowed them to kill themselves. I'm certain the rate would go up plenty.
I've said my peace. There's nothing more I can add to these conversations, there's very little you've added. Just assuming I want death, when you're the person advocating for the suicide rate to go up. And saying "right" over and over again, when it's an actual crime. So law says otherwise and that you're wrong. There is no "right to Life, Liberty, Bridge Jumping." You can backtrack, about bridge jumping to make my bombing scenario not be true to the ground work you've laid out already. And yeah, unless you backtrack, there's nothing else that can be done. You want suicide to be legal, let alone assisted, and you probably want free healthcare for all. And no limits on age or health or trivial reason, you can't judge those who kills themselves. And you'd like the suicide success rate to go up. Fantastic.
But since you've made like several outlandish statements against me, I feel justified in giving you this response.
People doing it all the time, doesn't give them the right to it. It's literally illegal and a crime. And not stopping them isn't a justifiable answer either. And we already actively do that as a society, as best as possible. Like all crimes. Just because we cannot stop all rapists, doesn't mean it's not a crime. This "it's my right to kill what's inconvenient to me" is the same argument I see with abortion and it's also just as wrong. This isn't based in anything but your emotions. (which while I'm bringing that up...)
Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. And what made it ten times worse, is you aren't even trying to pretend there's a legal/moral grey area anymore. You're not weighing pro's and con's whatsoever. You barely seem to give a damn how vast the list of evidence goes on. You're making this a black and white case. But that stubborn opinion is so ass backwards. You tried to cast me as the black, multiple times.
And the white in this scenario, is wanting someone to kill themselves and allowing people to commit willing acts of murder...(that's the GOOD side.) And the black's crime is wanting survival and that not to happen as much as possible.
I would have agreed to disagree long ago, but you're so incorrect. That when I point out how gun to the head suicide doesn't work. You make a statement along the lines of. "Well do you just want people to buy guns at walmart to kill themselves? You sick fuck." No, have you been reading a word I've typed? But you certainly seem to...(You're attributing motives to direct contradictions and making hypocritical statements.) Now, even though you just got through a negative scenario about a way of suicide you wanted to pin on me. Now, you're trying to say "I don't want to sound judgmental."
Give a break. Suicide is worth judging. Because it's selfish. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we got into defending suicide bombers next. Why not? It's their right according to you? Can't stop people like that, they happen all the time. (I'll even add a qualifier you never did, it can only destroy buildings. No innocent lives can get caught in the crossfire.) Because whether you meant to or not. You literally just advocated for increasing the suicide rate, and you gave no qualifiers on who shouldn't kill themselves. Or even ways that could destroy property or become easily public, as selfish bitter cries for attention. (like jumping off of buildings.) So I'm sure if we gave every emotionally irrational teen, an affordable free healthcare and then allowed them to kill themselves. I'm certain the rate would go up plenty.
I've said my peace. There's nothing more I can add to these conversations, there's very little you've added. Just assuming I want death, when you're the person advocating for the suicide rate to go up. And saying "right" over and over again, when it's an actual crime. So law says otherwise and that you're wrong. There is no "right to Life, Liberty, Bridge Jumping." You can backtrack, about bridge jumping to make my bombing scenario not be true to the ground work you've laid out already. And yeah, unless you backtrack, there's nothing else that can be done. You want suicide to be legal, let alone assisted, and you probably want free healthcare for all. And no limits on age or health or trivial reason, you can't judge those who kills themselves. And you'd like the suicide success rate to go up. Fantastic.
Congrats to all my peeps Down Under!
http://religionnews.com/2017/12/07/australian-parliament-allows-same-sex-marriages/
http://religionnews.com/2017/12/07/australian-parliament-allows-same-sex-marriages/
3x Like
@SleepingSilence I do think suicide bombers have a right to take their own lives, just like anyone else, its the murdering of all the other people that I have an objection to, so no, I dont need to backtrack.
@Dynamo Frokane Not so far off :P
Damage to buildings? Whatever method we decide to use for medically assisted suicide, I'm reasonably certain I wont be donning my scrubs to throw someone off a building.
Lets take a look at the Euthanasia law they use in the Netherlands, this is the sort advocating:
The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions are fulfilled:
the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options
there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, and the doctor must be present
the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
I'm sure emotional teens crying for attention will go through a long bureaucratic process involving consulting their GP and then mental health professionals and all the other hoops you would need to jump through. They will continue to attempt to kill themselves the way they currently do.
Yep.
Provided to all at no upfront charge from tax revenue, but yes.
Among terminal patients who would qualify for and desire such a thing? Yes.
Glad you are on board!
@Dynamo Frokane Not so far off :P
Damage to buildings? Whatever method we decide to use for medically assisted suicide, I'm reasonably certain I wont be donning my scrubs to throw someone off a building.
Lets take a look at the Euthanasia law they use in the Netherlands, this is the sort advocating:
The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions are fulfilled:
the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options
there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, and the doctor must be present
the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
I'm sure emotional teens crying for attention will go through a long bureaucratic process involving consulting their GP and then mental health professionals and all the other hoops you would need to jump through. They will continue to attempt to kill themselves the way they currently do.
when I point out how gun to the head suicide doesn't work.
I think I found the study this is referencing and the methodology is measuring people that are admitted to trauma centers. I think it excludes people who are pronounced dead at the scene. So if you are alive when you get there, you have a 42 percent chance.
A study on suicide lethality from the American Journal of Public Health (RS Spicer, TR Miller - Suicide acts in 8 states: incidence and case fatality rates by demographics and method. - American Journal of Public Health, 2000) rates lethality as follows:
Drug/poison ingestion 1.5
Poison by gas 41.5
Suffocation/hanging 61.4
Drowning/submersion 65.9
Firearm 82.5
Cut/pierce 1.2
Jump 34.5
Other 8.0
Making firearms the clear winner. Im actually a little surprised at just how few death are accounted for by OD and Cutting although its possible that suicide by OD is poorly captured in their data.
I'm not arguing that we should be offering assisted suicide in outpatient clinics for anyone who wanders by, but I do think that is is a sensible option to have on the table. Terminal patients often choose to die simply by stopping treatment even though we could keep them alive for months or years longer. Some simply opt to kill themselves and make an end to it one way or another. Id just as soon have it happen in a humane dignified way, rather than buying a shotgun and eating a shell.
You want suicide to be legal
Yep.
probably want free healthcare for all.
Provided to all at no upfront charge from tax revenue, but yes.
And you'd like the suicide success rate to go up.
Among terminal patients who would qualify for and desire such a thing? Yes.
Fantastic
Glad you are on board!
1x Like
Andreyich AS THOUGH A THOUSAND MOUTHS CRY OUT IN PAIN
Member
Seen
0-24 hrs ago
"Lol DRUMPF is a heretic because he didn't let in terrorists
Also
This is why Western Christianity is so flawed. This understanding of hell(or lack thereof) and the after-life is completely incompatible with the understanding of God being all-forgiving AND all-merciful AND all-compassionate/understanding and is simply wrong.
Also
<Snipped quote by Penny>
A good question to be sure. I actually do not believe in a literal hell as many other Christians do. No, you will not be burning forever in torment because you didn't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. What will actually happen is that you will just die. Cease to exist and become nothing, sort of like a forever, dreamless sleep, though of course with no chance of waking up.
It is eternal erasure that will happen to those who don't follow, not eternal torment.
This is why Western Christianity is so flawed. This understanding of hell(or lack thereof) and the after-life is completely incompatible with the understanding of God being all-forgiving AND all-merciful AND all-compassionate/understanding and is simply wrong.
© 2007-2024