Double-standards with suicide.

[The_P]

When it comes to suicide, the UK contradict themselves on this subject. It's not alright for people to consider euthanasia when they are suffering in pain from being physically immobile. However, it's fine for a Jehovah's Witness to be refused blood treatment while he/she's in hospital out of respect for their religious beliefs.

It seems that we're pussyfooting around those to suit the religious cults with their delusions and ignorance of medical science instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to take their life if they so wish.

What say you, people?

[Alex179]

I want everyone to kill themselves pretty much so I am for nationally legalized euthanasia.   This would help with population issues maybe, though people are going to kill themselves one way or another if they really want to.   The difference is preventing someone from faking a signed euthanasia form and actually murdering people, hehe.

[SovaNu]

i agrea with the pea.

[The_P]

i agrea with the pea.

You also agree with the notion that I am hot. ;o

[Christopher McCandless]

When it comes to suicide, the UK contradict themselves on this subject. It's not alright for people to consider euthanasia when they are suffering in pain from being physically immobile. However, it's fine for a Jehovah's Witness to be refused blood treatment while he/she's in hospital out of respect for their religious beliefs.

It seems that we're pussyfooting around those to suit the religious cults with their delusions and ignorance of medical science instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to take their life if they so wish.

What say you, people?

The Euthanasia one is for peoples protection, there is a good possibility that vulnerable people can be persuaded into signing the forms to off themselves. Anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment (a right which I think should be at a doctors discretion, so they can overrule it in cases of rank stupidity). I do hate the way religion is allowed a say in anything at all though...

[SovaNu]

i agrea with the pea.

You also agree with the notion that I am hot. ;o

well, aren't you?

[Calandale]

There is a perceived difference between action
and inaction.

[Soph]

If someone can do it for religious reasons, then they should be able to for whatever other reason they might have. All this crap about religious rights pisses me off. As an atheist I can have plenty of reasons to want to fuck off out of here, I don't want to have to convert to some religion to be able to do it though.

[Rabbit From Hell]

I think it should be like the way they do it in Soylent Green.  But without the being ground up into food part.

[Calandale]

If someone can do it for religious reasons, then they should be able to for whatever other reason they might have.

The difference isn't religion,
but rather action versus inaction.
Suicide cults are still frowned upon.

I think it should be like the way they do it in Soylent Green.  But without the being ground up into food part.

The food is the best part.

[ozymandias]

When it comes to suicide, the UK contradict themselves on this subject. It's not alright for people to consider euthanasia when they are suffering in pain from being physically immobile. However, it's fine for a Jehovah's Witness to be refused blood treatment while he/she's in hospital out of respect for their religious beliefs.

It seems that we're pussyfooting around those to suit the religious cults with their delusions and ignorance of medical science instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to take their life if they so wish.

What say you, people?

The Euthanasia one is for peoples protection, there is a good possibility that vulnerable people can be persuaded into signing the forms to off themselves. Anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment (a right which I think should be at a doctors discretion, so they can overrule it in cases of rank stupidity). I do hate the way religion is allowed a say in anything at all though...

I have to agree with this, AS LONG as it is a voluntary and iinformed choice BY the individual who chooses to refuse medical treatment or chooses to commit suicide.  Where I draw the line is from my standpoint as a nurse/medical professional.  Allow me to split hairs here.  As a nurse and geriatric/hospice specialist, I am committed to ensuring that my patients enjoy the highest, most dignified quality of life that can be done at the end of that individuals life.  Ex.  If by giving that shot of morphine that a HOSPICE patient needs to control their pain........I am hastening the end of their life.......so be it...........it's their choice and I am honoring their choice.   BUT, in the case of euthanasia, I'm worried that I am not responding to the patients desires, but to a Doctor's or families "convenience", especially since a lot of the case that I have read about and studied have been of patients UNABLE to make their own decisions.

I also do not like religion to intrude into medical decisions.  Rather I support the individuals right to choose according to THEIR beliefs, not ANYBODY else's.  In the long run, I have my own personal beliefs about such things, but, overall is my belief in the freedom of individual choice, AS LONG as that individual has the clarity of mind or previously written/documented choice to make that known.  If things are done by hearsay or second guessing, than I as a medical professional can't follow those and have to go by my own personal ethics.

And if that sounds confusing, believe me, this is one grey, murky area that scares the bloody fucking shit outta me.

[Christopher McCandless]

When it comes to suicide, the UK contradict themselves on this subject. It's not alright for people to consider euthanasia when they are suffering in pain from being physically immobile. However, it's fine for a Jehovah's Witness to be refused blood treatment while he/she's in hospital out of respect for their religious beliefs.

It seems that we're pussyfooting around those to suit the religious cults with their delusions and ignorance of medical science instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to take their life if they so wish.

What say you, people?

The Euthanasia one is for peoples protection, there is a good possibility that vulnerable people can be persuaded into signing the forms to off themselves. Anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment (a right which I think should be at a doctors discretion, so they can overrule it in cases of rank stupidity). I do hate the way religion is allowed a say in anything at all though...

I have to agree with this, AS LONG as it is a voluntary and iinformed choice BY the individual who chooses to refuse medical treatment or chooses to commit suicide.  Where I draw the line is from my standpoint as a nurse/medical professional.  Allow me to split hairs here.  As a nurse and geriatric/hospice specialist, I am committed to ensuring that my patients enjoy the highest, most dignified quality of life that can be done at the end of that individuals life.  Ex.  If by giving that shot of morphine that a HOSPICE patient needs to control their pain........I am hastening the end of their life.......so be it...........it's their choice and I am honoring their choice.   BUT, in the case of euthanasia, I'm worried that I am not responding to the patients desires, but to a Doctor's or families "convenience", especially since a lot of the case that I have read about and studied have been of patients UNABLE to make their own decisions.

I also do not like religion to intrude into medical decisions.  Rather I support the individuals right to choose according to THEIR beliefs, not ANYBODY else's.  In the long run, I have my own personal beliefs about such things, but, overall is my belief in the freedom of individual choice, AS LONG as that individual has the clarity of mind or previously written/documented choice to make that known.  If things are done by hearsay or second guessing, than I as a medical professional can't follow those and have to go by my own personal ethics.

And if that sounds confusing, believe me, this is one grey, murky area that scares the bloody fucking shit outta me.

I agree with you here, especially with the double effect bit. Personally though, in a lot of cases I would keep a paitient alive against their own wishes, its not like they cant off themselves later. Out of intrest, what would you have done with the Jehovahs witness?

[ozymandias]

When it comes to suicide, the UK contradict themselves on this subject. It's not alright for people to consider euthanasia when they are suffering in pain from being physically immobile. However, it's fine for a Jehovah's Witness to be refused blood treatment while he/she's in hospital out of respect for their religious beliefs.

It seems that we're pussyfooting around those to suit the religious cults with their delusions and ignorance of medical science instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to take their life if they so wish.

What say you, people?

The Euthanasia one is for peoples protection, there is a good possibility that vulnerable people can be persuaded into signing the forms to off themselves. Anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment (a right which I think should be at a doctors discretion, so they can overrule it in cases of rank stupidity). I do hate the way religion is allowed a say in anything at all though...

I have to agree with this, AS LONG as it is a voluntary and iinformed choice BY the individual who chooses to refuse medical treatment or chooses to commit suicide.  Where I draw the line is from my standpoint as a nurse/medical professional.  Allow me to split hairs here.  As a nurse and geriatric/hospice specialist, I am committed to ensuring that my patients enjoy the highest, most dignified quality of life that can be done at the end of that individuals life.  Ex.  If by giving that shot of morphine that a HOSPICE patient needs to control their pain........I am hastening the end of their life.......so be it...........it's their choice and I am honoring their choice.   BUT, in the case of euthanasia, I'm worried that I am not responding to the patients desires, but to a Doctor's or families "convenience", especially since a lot of the case that I have read about and studied have been of patients UNABLE to make their own decisions.

I also do not like religion to intrude into medical decisions.  Rather I support the individuals right to choose according to THEIR beliefs, not ANYBODY else's.  In the long run, I have my own personal beliefs about such things, but, overall is my belief in the freedom of individual choice, AS LONG as that individual has the clarity of mind or previously written/documented choice to make that known.  If things are done by hearsay or second guessing, than I as a medical professional can't follow those and have to go by my own personal ethics.

And if that sounds confusing, believe me, this is one grey, murky area that scares the bloody fucking shit outta me.

I agree with you here, especially with the double effect bit. Personally though, in a lot of cases I would keep a paitient alive against their own wishes, its not like they cant off themselves later. Out of intrest, what would you have done with the Jehovahs witness?

Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to their own beliefs.  The hospitals that I have worked in have a special consent and release form for them.  It's their choice.  As long as they understand the consequences of that choice.  As for keeping somebody alive against their will, thats murky too.  I myself have a living will stating no extraordinary measures should be taken if it means the quality of my life will mean being a vegetable for the rest of my life.  I have it in writing.  But, a Doctor can certainly override that wish, if they want to.

[SovaNu]

children of jehova's witnesses are a different story. if some guy wants to let himself die who are we to stop them? but if their children were to be ill... well, shouldn't the children get to decide? even if it is a decision made under pressure from the parents and doctors and religion... the parents shouldn't get to decide alone.

animal rights activists get to refuse treatment. it's not just religious people. if the drugs were tested with animals then you can refuse.

[Christopher McCandless]

When it comes to suicide, the UK contradict themselves on this subject. It's not alright for people to consider euthanasia when they are suffering in pain from being physically immobile. However, it's fine for a Jehovah's Witness to be refused blood treatment while he/she's in hospital out of respect for their religious beliefs.

It seems that we're pussyfooting around those to suit the religious cults with their delusions and ignorance of medical science instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to take their life if they so wish.

What say you, people?

The Euthanasia one is for peoples protection, there is a good possibility that vulnerable people can be persuaded into signing the forms to off themselves. Anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment (a right which I think should be at a doctors discretion, so they can overrule it in cases of rank stupidity). I do hate the way religion is allowed a say in anything at all though...

I have to agree with this, AS LONG as it is a voluntary and iinformed choice BY the individual who chooses to refuse medical treatment or chooses to commit suicide.  Where I draw the line is from my standpoint as a nurse/medical professional.  Allow me to split hairs here.  As a nurse and geriatric/hospice specialist, I am committed to ensuring that my patients enjoy the highest, most dignified quality of life that can be done at the end of that individuals life.  Ex.  If by giving that shot of morphine that a HOSPICE patient needs to control their pain........I am hastening the end of their life.......so be it...........it's their choice and I am honoring their choice.   BUT, in the case of euthanasia, I'm worried that I am not responding to the patients desires, but to a Doctor's or families "convenience", especially since a lot of the case that I have read about and studied have been of patients UNABLE to make their own decisions.

I also do not like religion to intrude into medical decisions.  Rather I support the individuals right to choose according to THEIR beliefs, not ANYBODY else's.  In the long run, I have my own personal beliefs about such things, but, overall is my belief in the freedom of individual choice, AS LONG as that individual has the clarity of mind or previously written/documented choice to make that known.  If things are done by hearsay or second guessing, than I as a medical professional can't follow those and have to go by my own personal ethics.

And if that sounds confusing, believe me, this is one grey, murky area that scares the bloody fucking shit outta me.

I agree with you here, especially with the double effect bit. Personally though, in a lot of cases I would keep a paitient alive against their own wishes, its not like they cant off themselves later. Out of intrest, what would you have done with the Jehovahs witness?

Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to their own beliefs.  The hospitals that I have worked in have a special consent and release form for them.  It's their choice.  As long as they understand the consequences of that choice.  As for keeping somebody alive against their will, thats murky too.  I myself have a living will stating no extraordinary measures should be taken if it means the quality of my life will mean being a vegetable for the rest of my life.  I have it in writing.  But, a Doctor can certainly override that wish, if they want to.

They do have such a right, just as you have a right to your own beliefs, and if they are out, then you could (and in my view should) have given the blood transfusion, just not told her about it. I really dont see why someone otherwise healthy should have been allowed to die for such a laughable reason. Asides, people in such religions are born into them.