The right to die. - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 07:38 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
MetaPhysicalPajamas's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: Runs
Location: Varies
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

Quote:
tiggerfink - 3/18/2005 4:18 AM

We as Americans should have to right to die and marry a pet rock.
Dead Americans have no right to marry, period. No pet rocks, no nothing. [:)]
MetaPhysicalPajamas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 07:39 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

Quote:
MS Fowler - 3/18/2005 8:38 PM

Kirk,
I used to respect your point of view, but your hatred has made you appear mad.
You make a moral equivilency between war and murder. Was there no good done by the ousting of Sadam? Or do just ignore any possible good because it doesn't fit your hate-filled view of everyone who disagress with your self important world view?
Where do you draw the line, or is it only you who gets that privilege? Right now you claim that a brain scan will be the line. i remember when abortion was sold to people as a last resort. Now we routinely murder millions....millions! Who's to say that in 20 years the case for killing someone will be that they are simply not a productive citizen, or maybe not a member of the correct race, or group. Or maybe a member of the wrong group.
Your hatred combined with your arrogance makes any discussion of the issues impossible. You end up resembling those nazis you claim to hate.
The right to an abortion is an individual right, a right of choice and conscience. It is simply a right that the state has no business in attempting to exercise coercion to prohibit it. It is very different from the group actions you claim it will lead to - no groups possess these rights today, and to gain those rights they will have to go through the legislative process. I certainly doubt we will be legislating these kinds of things any time soon in this country.

This is not ranting - this is a philosophy with strong underpinnings - Jefferson, Rousseau, Gassendi, Locke - are the originators of an idea that has freed us all in this country - that certain rights exist before any government or legislature or king, is even given the power to govern - the natural rights of man, unalienable rights - a revolutionary idea at the time, when the prevailing view was that one's rights were what the church and the king told you they were.

The rights of governments, the rights of groups, corporations, all come after the fact - they are created as instruments by men exercising their unalienable rights, and all these groups possess "created" rights, not natural rights - and while created rights can be taken away, "certain natural rights" as Jefferson so eloquently says, "are inviolate". And we all know the three most important, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The US Constitution clearly says that these rights are possessed by people who are "naturally born, or naturalized citizens of the United States". That one sentence is the core basis of a women's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being superior to that of a fetus, who in its unborn state posesses no natural rights. It's a bitch, but that's the way it is.

It is a central point of American law. One of these natural rights is a right to be "secure in one's own person", in other words to be an autonomous individual with choices and an ultimate right to be left the hell alone. It is that right that forms for me anyway, the philosophical and moral reasoning behind recognizing a women's right to abortion. I just do not see Nazi mob action resulting from this.

I also don't see where the Shiavo case fits in. The Shiavo case is a legal case, not a political one, although the right wing has gone out of their way to turn it into one. Under Florida law, and in most states, if not all, once a person marries, the spouse's rights overrule parental rights. Mr. Shiavo simply has the right to make decisions for his wife if she is incapacitated - it is the law. The theory of law here is also well established - Mrs Shiavo is unable to exercise her rights, and the law allows her husband to act in her stead. He claims she wished to not live in a vegative state, and his claims have held up in court. In both these cases, the remedies are through the courts and the law. Absent constitutional amendments, this is simply the way the world is.

The is nothing, absolutely nothing new about this case - people face this issue and make these decision everyday, with infants and spouses that are beyond hope. Are we to now outlaw loved one's rights entirely? Are we to build mass factories to keep these hopeless cases alive with pumps regardless of the wishes of loved ones? Are those that can be helped now to be shunted aside so doctors and resources can be committed to keeping alive the brain dead? Are the hundreds of thousands of stroke victims, drug overdose victims (like Ms Shiavo), babies born with only brain stems, accident victims, are we to now keep all of these people alive heroically even tho none of them are even aware they are alive? This is a Frankenstein world you propose. If a person cannot breath or eat on there own and there is no sign of cognizant brain activity, they are dead. Let the dead bury the dead.








Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #23 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 07:44 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
MetaPhysicalPajamas's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: Runs
Location: Varies
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

On that whole Schiavo thing, someone said that the problem is that if brain death is a sufficient condition to kill Floridians then the whole state could shortly be unpopulated.[:D]
MetaPhysicalPajamas is offline  
post #24 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 08:48 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
79-300SD's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1979 300SD, 1983 300D Mercedes
Location: Hells Half Acre (Great Falls, Virginia)
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 79-300SD
RE: The right to die.

Quote:
S-KLASSE8 - 3/18/2005 9:19 PM

So... the bottom line is - If a doctor and your "loved one and/or significant other" (that may indeed be waiting on your life insurance money) can convince the judge to pull the feeding tube from your mouth, because they think that in their god-like opinion, that's what YOU must want, because they want to save you from LIFE! If it's indeed the quality of life that they are thinking of, there is no quality whatsoever in death. The rule on this should be - Help them live, and DO NO HARM!
I don't want to live like a turnip......neither does my wife......adn when my father was dieing of cancer he had a DNR signed........

There is a point when you are better off dead...she passed that 15 years ago.....the parents aren't footing the $300K to $750k a year to keep her alive...while they whine and complain there isn't enough in medicare for elderly people who are cognitive.....that money would go further to people who are at least able to know when they shit themselves even if its AFTER they have done it....

I will agree with Kirk on this one....stop force feeding the turnip....let her pass away and go on to a far better place...its way overdue.

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

Speed is a question of money. How fast do you want to go?

----------------------------------------
Proud Owner of a

1979 W116 300SD

1983 W123 300D
----------------------------------------

Come join us at http://schumanautomotive.com/forums
79-300SD is offline  
post #25 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 10:19 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

Quote:
79-300SD - 3/18/2005 10:48 PM


I don't want to live like a turnip......neither does my wife......adn when my father was dieing of cancer he had a DNR signed........

There is a point when you are better off dead...she passed that 15 years ago.....the parents aren't footing the $300K to $750k a year to keep her alive...while they whine and complain there isn't enough in medicare for elderly people who are cognitive.....that money would go further to people who are at least able to know when they shit themselves even if its AFTER they have done it....

I will agree with Kirk on this one....stop force feeding the turnip....let her pass away and go on to a far better place...its way overdue.

"In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a 'mercy death' to 'patients considered incurable accoriding to the best available human judgement of thier state of health.' The intent of the so called 'euthanasia' program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: it's aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, thus 'cleansing' the 'Aryan' race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society.

The idea of killing the incurably ill was posed well before 1939. In the 1920s, debate on this issue centered on a book coauthored by Alfred Hoche, a noted psychiatrist, and Karl Binding, a prominent scholar of criminal law. They argued that economic savings justified the killing of 'useless lives' ('idiots' and the 'congenitally crippled'). Economic deprivation during WWI provided the context for this idea. During the war, patients in asylums had ranked low on the list for rationing food and medical supplies, and as a result, many died from starvation or disease. More generally, the war with Germany's humiliating defeat, led many nationalists to consider ways to regenerate the nation as a whole at the expense of individual rights.

In 1935 Hitler stated privately that 'in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it' because 'such a problem would be more easily solved' during wartime. War would provide both a cover for killing and a pretext--hospital beds and medical personnel would be freed up for the war effort. The upheaval of war and the diminished value of human life during wartime would also, Hitler believed, mute expected opposition. To make the connection to the war explicit, Hitler's decree was backdated to Sept. 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland.


aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
post #26 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 10:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

Everybody has a right to die. Whatever you do, it is going to happen and your time is finite.

What we don't have is a right to life, no matter what you do, there is no guarantee except death and corruption.
Botnst is offline  
post #27 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 10:41 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

Quote:
azimuth - 3/18/2005 10:19 PM

"In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a 'mercy death' to 'patients considered incurable accoriding to the best available human judgement of thier state of health.' The intent of the so called 'euthanasia' program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: it's aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, thus 'cleansing' the 'Aryan' race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society.

The idea of killing the incurably ill was posed well before 1939. In the 1920s, debate on this issue centered on a book coauthored by Alfred Hoche, a noted psychiatrist, and Karl Binding, a prominent scholar of criminal law. They argued that economic savings justified the killing of 'useless lives' ('idiots' and the 'congenitally crippled'). Economic deprivation during WWI provided the context for this idea. During the war, patients in asylums had ranked low on the list for rationing food and medical supplies, and as a result, many died from starvation or disease. More generally, the war with Germany's humiliating defeat, led many nationalists to consider ways to regenerate the nation as a whole at the expense of individual rights.

In 1935 Hitler stated privately that 'in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it' because 'such a problem would be more easily solved' during wartime. War would provide both a cover for killing and a pretext--hospital beds and medical personnel would be freed up for the war effort. The upheaval of war and the diminished value of human life during wartime would also, Hitler believed, mute expected opposition. To make the connection to the war explicit, Hitler's decree was backdated to Sept. 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland.
Sorry, but your analogy is leaking. We aren't talking about euthanasia here, we're talking about the discontinuation of extraordinary and unnatural measures taken to prolong life, and in this instance, valueless life. And by valueless, I don't refer to subjective values of the husband, the parents, or anyone other than the victim of this horror. Heaven forbid this pitiful creature actually maintains some level of consciousness. That would truly be fodder for a Stephen King story. One can only hope that she is in a totally vegetative state with no awarenes of her own existance. I wouldn't want to endure such an existance for 15 days, let alone 15 years. Would anyone?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #28 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-18-2005, 10:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

Quote:
GermanStar - 3/19/2005 12:41 AM

Quote:
azimuth - 3/18/2005 10:19 PM

"In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a 'mercy death' to 'patients considered incurable accoriding to the best available human judgement of thier state of health.' The intent of the so called 'euthanasia' program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: it's aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, thus 'cleansing' the 'Aryan' race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society.

The idea of killing the incurably ill was posed well before 1939. In the 1920s, debate on this issue centered on a book coauthored by Alfred Hoche, a noted psychiatrist, and Karl Binding, a prominent scholar of criminal law. They argued that economic savings justified the killing of 'useless lives' ('idiots' and the 'congenitally crippled'). Economic deprivation during WWI provided the context for this idea. During the war, patients in asylums had ranked low on the list for rationing food and medical supplies, and as a result, many died from starvation or disease. More generally, the war with Germany's humiliating defeat, led many nationalists to consider ways to regenerate the nation as a whole at the expense of individual rights.

In 1935 Hitler stated privately that 'in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it' because 'such a problem would be more easily solved' during wartime. War would provide both a cover for killing and a pretext--hospital beds and medical personnel would be freed up for the war effort. The upheaval of war and the diminished value of human life during wartime would also, Hitler believed, mute expected opposition. To make the connection to the war explicit, Hitler's decree was backdated to Sept. 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland.
...I wouldn't want to endure such an existance for 15 days, let alone 15 years. Would anyone?
I don't know about anybody but myself and my wife (we have living wills). I do not claim to know the mind of anybody else. Do you?

I do not understand why the state believes it has a compelling interest in unnatural prolongation of dependent life just as I do not understand why the state should have an interest in the survival of a dependent fetus. How much gov intrusion is appropriate and when does it become burdensome? Is that line immutable of does it change with society?

Do laws guide or reflect society?
Botnst is offline  
post #29 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 12:22 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
tiggerfink's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2004
Vehicle: 2004 SL500 2002 SLK320
Location: TN USA
Posts: 1,672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: The right to die.

Our lawyer told us today that living wills do no mean anything. According to some state laws, we do not have to right to die or have an assisted suicide. He also mention to find a primary doctor that believes in the right to die.

He gave Dr Death as an example for assist suicide.

2002 SLK320
2004 SL500
tiggerfink is offline  
post #30 of 52 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 07:50 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: The right to die.

It brings to mind the case of the 84 year old man who was tried for murder because he whacked his terminal-cancer patient wife, something his wife begged him to do. As a society, we have been driven to insanity by "sanctity of life" nut cases.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome