# Killing People Legally, and Calling It "Dignified"



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

When I read about what's going on in Canada, my heart breaks.

Recently, I came across a story about a 23 year old man who is depressed, has diabetes, and has no girlfriend. This was considered to make him sufficiently qualified to receive MAiD: Medical Assistance in Dying.

Had the young man's mother not discovered his plan, had the doctor who agreed to kill him not been outed, the story would have had a different outcome.









Canada To Legalise Child Euthanasia WITHOUT Parental Consent


In 2017, we learned of the sad case of Charlie Gard, an infant born with a rare and severe genetic disorder. Even though his parents had raised the money for an experimental treatment overseas, British authorities refused to release the boy to his mom and dad, saying he deserved to “die with...




www.eutimes.net


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

This is, as the above story noted, not isolated, out-of-the-norm incidents. 

A 61 year old man was killed for the medical condition of "hearing loss." Hardly something that leads to death. 









Canadian man with a history of depression euthanized for 'hearing loss'


A Canadian man was euthanized due simply to "hearing loss." Experts claim this is an increasing problem within the country facing people with disabilities.




www.liveaction.org


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Ireland is now considering legalized assisted suicide. According to the story, this particular bill under consideration was spurred on by a woman who was diagnosed with uterine cancer over 10 years ago. She is still alive, but she wants to be able to suicide "to spare her children."

Spare them what? Facing reality? She doesn't want them to see her die.

Isn't dying part of life? 









Ireland set to form special committee to consider legalizing assisted suicide


The Irish Parliament Justice Committee is expected to meet in October to review the possibility of legalizing assisted death in Ireland.




www.liveaction.org


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Do you believe that an individual has the right to determine whether to live or not?


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Having watched both parents die slow, agonizing deaths I consider assisted suicide to be a necessity in any civilized society. It is absolutely monstrous that we allow people to suffer that way.

That being said, the examples you posted highlight the dangers of such policies. There is a time, when helping *terminal* patients to die quickly and painlessly is absolutely necessary....but killing off healthy people because they 'feel' like they dont want to live anymore is wrong.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It is a natural progression from abortion. Killing the unborn was seen by the vast majority as an abomination decades ago except for a few criminals wiling to do it illegally for money. Now half the country thinks it is a great idea and some are saying it should be legal even after birth. If you don't give a damn about babies, why should you care if we kill the sick and mentally ill? The natural progression will be to kill the 'useless'. Too old to work and living on Social Security? You are a burden to society and a drain on the economy. Countries that go down this path always justify their killing by saying it is good for the masses and the honorable thing to do.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Thats a good point, Poppy


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Pony said:


> She is still alive, but she wants to be able to suicide "to spare her children."
> 
> *Spare them what? *Facing reality? She doesn't want them to see her die.


Probably wants to spare them the unnecessary pain of watching her suffer a long, agonizing death. And, spare herself the suffering and indignity of such a death.



Pony said:


> Isn't dying part of life?


Yes. And like living, people should be able to do it on their own terms.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

I am totally against assisted suicide, but would say that is with one consideration: a person should be always able to put a plan in place where in certain situations they want only palliative care. If I am already dying of cancer and get pneumonia lay off the antibiotics and let me check out. I know legally we have those provisions, at least in most states. But with family in emergency medicine, I know sometimes the medics make the decision to start a life support system or treatment plan, and it can take a court order to end it. And sometimes loving spouses, parents, or kids just can't give up the person. In those cases we need stronger support for the person's own end of life directive.

And yes, once we decided babies were disposable, we pretty much cinched the idea anyone is disposable.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

In the US you just need to pose a threat to the Clintons . . .


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

With the high costs of medical bills and senior homes, I can't blame some for not wanting to burden their families with no inheritance or paying tens of thousands of dollars (or hundreds).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I had a parent that committed suicide. The chance of assisted suicide would have provided counseling and the choice might not have been the same. Each person should decide for themselves if they don't want to live. As a society, we can provide options that will ease the passage as long as they receive counseling beforehand. I would rather ease their passage after counseling than have them have to resort to harsh options that will have them pass in a horrible manner and even harder on the people who love them.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

painterswife said:


> I had a parent that committed suicide. The chance of assisted suicide would have provided counseling and the choice might not have been the same. Each person should decide for themselves if they don't want to live. As a society, we can provide options that will ease the passage as long as they receive counseling beforehand. I would rather ease their passage after counseling than have them have to resort to harsh options that will have them pass in a horrible manner and even harder on the people who love them.


I agree with this but the question implied by Poppy and others; Should we entrust people with the power of life and death over others? Will it be advanced and corrupted like all other power?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Adirondackian said:


> I agree with this but the question implied by Poppy and others; Should we entrust people with the power of life and death over others? Will it be advanced and corrupted like all other power?


There are always things that should not happen on both sides of a situation. Should we outlaw all guns because some use them badly?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Adirondackian said:


> I agree with this but the question implied by Poppy and others; Should we entrust people with the power of life and death over others? Will it be advanced and corrupted like all other power?


The assumption seems to be that allowing people to determine the time and manner of their own death is somehow a slippery slope to the nazi Germany program of eradicating the "useless eaters" of society. Not a concern everyone shares. But, some people see slippery slopes everywhere.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

painterswife said:


> There are always things that should not happen on both sides of a situation. Should we outlaw all guns because some use them badly?


Many people think so, ironically, those that favor outlawing all guns also tend to support legalized killing.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

kinderfeld said:


> The assumption seems to be that allowing people to determine the time and manner of their own death is somehow a slippery slope to the nazi Germany program of eradicating the "useless eaters" of society. Not a concern everyone shares. But, some people see slippery slopes everywhere.


Could be. Maybe some dont see slippery slopes enough, until they are on their backs and halfway down. "Probable cause" was a slippery slope that lead to "reasonable suspicion", and now down to "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"...slippery slopes do exist and should be weighed IMO.


----------



## Browsercat (Aug 2, 2003)

Adirondackian said:


> I agree with this but the question implied by Poppy and others; Should we entrust people with the power of life and death over others? Will it be advanced and corrupted like all other power?


There are a lot of safeguards built into laws that allow assisted suicide; one tv episode of some ongoing news program (it's been years since I saw this) talked about the law in one country in Europe and how a woman fought for the right to end her life. She never took advantage of the law, but she wanted the right because it gave her control and choice. 

I think a lot of people are afraid that someone will 'do' this to them, when the reality is that there are a lot of bureaucratic hoops to jump through and it's not automatic or quick or easy. 

Everyone should make out a POLST form and make the decisions on DNR, etc. when they can and not put it off. When you know you don't want to be kept "alive" on a machine 24/7, make your wishes known.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

There is a huge difference between a person choosing assisted suicide and someone else choosing it for them. I don't think it is anyone else's _&&*_& business if I have a painful,
terminal illness and do not wish to suffer till the end. Or put my family in debt for the rest of their lives because of medical bills. I watched my father die of cancer and it was one of the worst things ever. He was in agony, even with all the pain meds they gave him. But he lived in a state that doesn't have assisted suicide. 
It is a horrible feeling when you can't do anything but pray for him to go quickly. 

If you read the requirements for assisted suicide, it isn't just for people who are feeling sorry about their lives. It requires a great deal of discussion, counseling, a waiting period, and an actual terminal diagnosis. 

I think the slippery slope comes when others are allowed to make a decision about your life (or death). If you don't "allow" someone to choose, then when does someone
(dr., gov't., spouse) get to choose for them?


----------



## Liza007 (Mar 12, 2020)

Pony said:


> When I read about what's going on in Canada, my heart breaks.
> 
> Recently, I came across a story about a 23 year old man who is depressed, has diabetes, and has no girlfriend. This was considered to make him sufficiently qualified to receive MAiD: Medical Assistance in Dying.
> 
> ...


If you really want the answers, I recommend looking for 'Aktion T14'
Then look at who Chrystina Freeland is
God bless, happy hunting


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I have a problem with doctors "helping" people to make the decision to end their lives. Suicide is easy enough to do already. Why do people need to have a doctor help them?


----------



## Faith6 (3 mo ago)

but then , you also run into situations such as Alzheimers....it's a disease that is progressive but often slow...often needing to be taken care of by others at a high cost for years possibly decades....yet they are often unable to make that kind of decision on their own.... the reason I bring this up is because my dad was beginning the stages of dementia in his 80's and his health was declining....he wound up dying from Covid but it was hard to watch a Marine from the Korean War era slowly lose the dignity he had always been so proud of....but in this situation, do you let a guardian make that decision? I seriously would not want my brother to make that call


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that an individual has the right to determine whether to live or not?


I was comfortable with the original parameters of MAID but it has shifted a direction I'm not comfortable with when I read articles like this: 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-veterans-affairs-maid-counselling-1.6560136

MAID was originally set up for people with terminal conditions to die with dignity and not to assist anyone and everyone who simply wants help to check out. I've seen articles with people requesting MAID because they couldn't find a 'suitable caregiver', one couldn't find an apartment that suited them and a couple suffering from depression, none of which meet the original criteria of a terminal condition with impending death. 

I also don't believe that doctors should be influencing anyone to use the MAID program, other than letting someone with a terminal condition know that it is an option available.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

kinderfeld said:


> The assumption seems to be that allowing people to determine the time and manner of their own death is somehow a slippery slope... Not a concern everyone shares. But, some people see slippery slopes everywhere.


Can you name anything the government is involved in that hasn't gone down that slippery slope???


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

As mentioned before, if you have a POLST and DNR in place before you get something like Alzheimers, it is already taken care of when you are still sound in mind.
My husband and I have discussed these possibilities and have made the necessary provisions. I recommend everyone do so ahead of time. 

The reason doctors have to "help" them is because they are the ones with access to the drugs required. Just because one chooses death, does not mean they want
to have to blow their brains out with a gun. 

No matter what euphemisms we use, "put to sleep" "put down" "euthanized", they all mean the same thing. Killed. Anyone who has animals has probably been through
it with their animals. It is generally painless and peaceful. 
Now why on earth wouldn't you want your loved one (or you) to have that option instead of lying in a hospital bed wasting away or in agony for months before dying? 
It is an OPTION, not a forced choice.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> I have a problem with doctors "helping" people to make the decision to end their lives. Suicide is easy enough to do already. Why do people need to have a doctor help them?


Good point. I see doctors helping people kill themselves the same way I see doctors 'helping' confused young people go through the transgender process. I have no problem with people seriously ill and in pain asking for pallative care. There are strong pain meds that will stop the pain, but sometimes the dosage required keeps them unconscious and ultimately causes them to die a bit early. IMO, that is fine and far better than opting for suicide.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> Can you name anything the government is involved in that hasn't gone down that slippery slope???


Why should anyone's personal end of life decisions involve the government at all?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> I have a problem with doctors "helping" people to make the decision to end their lives.


Nobody is suggesting that they help in the decision making process. It should all be up to the patient. 



Danaus29 said:


> Suicide is easy enough to do already. Why do people need to have a doctor help them?


A legal issue.
It's about having the option for a doctor to prescribe a painless means. A drug cocktail that the patient takes, falls asleep, and doesn't wake up. A quick, painless, peaceful way to go.

It's already an option in several states.




__





States Where Medical Aid in Dying is Authorized







compassionandchoices.org


----------



## Faith6 (3 mo ago)

my son has a DNR....so I do understand that....but when he was five and in a critical situation that involved an IO, I was unable to follow through with it and rescinded the DNR....now that he's eighteen, I don't think I would make the same decision


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

poppy said:


> equired keeps them unconscious and ultimately causes them to die a bit early. IMO, that is fine and far better than opting for suicide.


So you would prefer that your loved ones (or you) lie there in a drug induced coma until death? Meanwhile you truly don't know how aware they are of their surroundings and all that is going on. And again, why is that "your" choice, when it is their life? Especially if they have left specific instructions differently.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that an individual has the right to determine whether to live or not?


Do you think a child who can't drink, drive, rent their own apartment, get a job, or do anything else without a guardian............................should be allowed to convince a doctor who doesn't really know them or live with them every day, that they should just die, and their parents shouldn't have any say in that?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Do you think a child who can't drink, drive, rent their own apartment, get a job, or do anything else without a guardian............................should be allowed to convince a doctor who doesn't really know them or live with them every day, that they should just die, and their parents shouldn't have any say in that?


I don't think I have ever posted anything that would suggest I believe a child should make a decision without the input of a parent or guardian.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I don't think anyone can answer this question for someone else. Everyone is responding from their level of understanding, spiritual path, and life experience, which is a normal behavior.

I know one person who shot himself. I know one person who stopped eating and drinking water and passed within days.

The shooting situation was horrendous. The other was dignified.

That is all I know.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Canada has gone full blown clown, evil clown, like Pennywise.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

On the upside, I hear Soylent Green will be available soon.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I think when people object to other people requesting medical assistance to die with dignity it's because the objectors are terrified of Death because of their religious beliefs. A lot of religious people believe that Death is an evil entity who must be avoided and delayed or defeated at all possible costs, including allowing agonizing suffering, because to allow and give welcome to Death is an evil, mortal sin to those people. 

Personally I think they are delusional and undignified to prefer a miserable non-peaceful death over a painless and welcome death but that's their prerogative and I wouldn't interfere with their choices. Just as I'd expect them to keep their delusions to themselves and not try to interfere with choices that are being made by people who welcome death with open arms and peace and dignity.

I don't have objections to MAID in Canada if the Government's eligibility criteria are met:









More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report


More Canadians are ending their lives with a medically-assisted death, says the third federal annual report on medical assistance in dying (MAID). Data shows that 10,064 people died in 2021 with medical aid, an increase of 32 per cent over 2020.




www.ctvnews.ca





Here are all of the Government of Canada's criteria that must be met for eligibility:





__





Medical assistance in dying - Canada.ca


About medical assistance in dying and the new legislation.




www.canada.ca





.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Paumon said:


> I think when people object to other people requesting medical assistance to die with dignity it's because the objectors are terrified of Death because of their religious beliefs. A lot of religious people believe that Death is an evil entity who must be avoided and delayed or defeated at all possible costs, including allowing agonizing suffering, because to allow and give welcome to Death is an evil, mortal sin to those people. .


Nonsense.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that an individual has the right to determine whether to live or not?


I absolutely do. This is really "their body, their choice". ( Assuming being of majority age and of sound mind)


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Faith6 said:


> but then , you also run into situations such as Alzheimers....it's a disease that is progressive but often slow...often needing to be taken care of by others at a high cost for years possibly decades....yet they are often unable to make that kind of decision on their own.... the reason I bring this up is because my dad was beginning the stages of dementia in his 80's and his health was declining....he wound up dying from Covid but it was hard to watch a Marine from the Korean War era slowly lose the dignity he had always been so proud of....but in this situation, do you let a guardian make that decision? I seriously would not want my brother to make that call


There should be a kind of living will where they can, when of sound mind, set up parameters of when assisted suicide would be warranted.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Edit: Misunderstood the thread.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> I have a problem with doctors "helping" people to make the decision to end their lives. Suicide is easy enough to do already. Why do people need to have a doctor help them?


I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word "help" in the above context. If you are referring to a medical doctor using coercion or persuasion against a patient's will, nobody needs that and it is illegal for anybody to coerce another person to die.

If a person meets the required criteria to have their life ended through legally approved medical assistance they have a right to be informed by their doctor about what would be the best method for the doctor to use to accomplish that according to the patient's needs and to meet legal criteria. The doctor providing that information is "helping" the patient.

Why would you think suicide is easy??? Ending one's life isn't ever easy. Suicide in the traditional sense of the word is illegal and I think it's never easy for any honourable and law abiding person to commit suicide under any circumstances. It's also hard to make such a decision if there is going to be social stigma or legal and financial liabilities because of it for the loved ones who are left behind. 

Not least of which, ending one's life without approved medical assistance is usually violent and very messy and it's a horrible, undignified and often painful way to die that creates more stigma and stress for surviving loved ones. To die peacefully is especially not easy if a person is physically incapacitated and helpless, unable to move or otherwise physically unable to help their self to die and needing assistance to do so quickly, efficiently and painlessly.

So what is the person supposed and expected to do?

.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Hiro said:


> Canada has gone full blown clown, evil clown, like Pennywise.


They're trying to be compassionate toward people who are suffering, but the direction they're going is mainly because they've been brainwashed by Nietzsche, Nihilists, and Post Modernists of the absolute lowest order.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Nonsense.


If you think that is nonsense then please explain, what do you think _are_ the reasons for the objections?

.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

wiscto said:


> They're trying to be compassionate toward people who are suffering, but the direction they're going is mainly because *they've been brainwashed by Nietzsche, Nihilists, and Post Modernists of the absolute lowest order*.


I don't know what that means. Can you please explain what that means?

.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

wiscto said:


> They're trying to be compassionate toward people who are suffering, but the direction they're going is mainly because they've been brainwashed by Nietzsche, Nihilists, and Post Modernists of the absolute lowest order.


If naivety had a name.....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wiscto said:


> You literally just did in this thread...


Please quote the post you believe says that.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word "help" in the above context. If you are referring to a medical doctor using coercion or persuasion against a patient's will, nobody needs that and it is illegal for anybody to coerce another person to die.
> 
> If a person meets the required criteria to have their life ended through legally approved medical assistance they have a right to be informed by their doctor about what would be the best method for the doctor to use to accomplish that according to the patient's needs and to meet legal criteria. The doctor providing that information is "helping" the patient.
> 
> ...


From some of the articles I have read, there are strict guidelines for ending a life more easily for a terminal patient. But other articles have said that assisted suicide has been, or was planned for people who did not meet that criteria.

Assisted suicide is not legal here in the US. But that hasn't stopped doctors from performing it on some patients. Before anyone says that never happens, google William Husel.









A Doctor Was Accused in the Fentanyl-Related Deaths of 14 Patients. Why Did the Jury Acquit Him?


Dr. William Husel, 46, was accused of overdosing his ill patients, but a jury found him not guilty on all counts




people.com





None of his patients asked for AS. None of their families were involved in the process. Overstepping bounds and coercion will happen. When the patient is dead, who will argue saying that isn't what they really wanted?

My mother in law was *FORCED* by hospital personnel to sign a DNR order. Despite her crying and saying that she didn't want to die, the hospital liason and a doctor came into her room and told her she was not allowed to go home unless she signed that paper. Yes, that happened. I was there. I witnessed the interaction and saw my mother in law with tears streaming down her face telling them she didn't want to die, that she wanted to be brought back if possible. I call that coercion.

Suicide isn't always messy. There are ways to quickly and easily end a life without being violent or messy. Those who are intent on ending their life can easily research and find those ways without me spelling them out.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that an individual has the right to determine whether to live or not?


YES. suicide is fine with me. Cant take anyone with you, you dont get a funeral, and need to make clean up easy.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Please quote the post you believe says that.


You know exactly what I'm talking about...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wiscto said:


> You know exactly what I'm talking about...


I can guess, but I am not going to assume like you did that what was posted said more than it did.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Paumon said:


> I don't know what that means. Can you please explain what that means?
> 
> .


The West pushed their youth into universities, where dysfunctional, antisocial, depressed academics who hated their lives and blamed society taught them to feel the same way by dazzling them with the words of Nietzsche, various prominent Nihilists, and Post Modernists. It's why anything and everything that means anything to anyone in The West is constantly attacked by relentless, angry little wankers.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I can guess, but I am not going to assume like you did that what was posted said more than it did.


I asked the question. Apparently your answer is no. So then why would you want a doctor, who doesn't really know a child, or a therapist, who doesn't really know a child, to determine on short notice that a child can choose death? Isn't it actually more important for the parent to be involved when we're talking about life?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

@Danaus29, not trying to put you on the spot but I think your responses aren't relevant to Canada's MAID policies and required criteria. I also think you don't know how a helpless person can do research and kill their own self without assistance from other people, and that's why you sidestepped that issue. The only resort that people have in such a helpless and desperate situation is starvation and there is nothing peaceful and painless about that.

I'm truly sorry about the betrayal that happened to your mother-in-law. 😢 If her degredation, humiliation and loss of dignity that you witnessed was also witnessed by other family members I don't understand why nobody in the family was able to step up to the plate to defend and intervene on her behalf. 

If she died then I hope she at least had a painless passing in spite of it being a frightening and humiliating passing instead of a peaceful passing for her.

.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Adirondackian said:


> "Probable cause" was a slippery slope that lead to "reasonable suspicion", and now down to "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"...


Actually it's always been that way. 
One didn't lead to the other. 



Adirondackian said:


> .slippery slopes do exist and should be weighed IMO.


I don't disagree. I just don't see one by the government actually staying out of someone's personal business for a change.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Paumon said:


> @Danaus29, not trying to put you on the spot but I think your responses aren't relevant to Canada's MAID policies and required criteria. I also think you don't know how a helpless person can do research and kill their own self without assistance from other people, and that's why you sidestepped that issue. The only resort that people have in such a helpless and desperate situation is starvation and there is nothing peaceful and painless about that.
> 
> I'm truly sorry about the betrayal that happened to your mother-in-law. 😢 If her degredation, humiliation and loss of dignity that you witnessed was also witnessed by other family members I don't understand why nobody in the family was able to step up to the plate to defend and intervene on her behalf.
> 
> ...


It would be appalling for many people to speak for others. But, some people have no shame.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Danaus29, you are incorrect. Assisted suicide IS legal in some states in the US. 

What happened to your mother in law was awful and probably illegal. Someone should have stepped in to help her.
NO ONE should have the right to force someone to sign a DNR. 

What happened to my father was awful and perfectly legal. He was made to endure weeks of agony before he died
because others believed it was their choice to make for him. 

Neither situation should have happened.

I find it interesting that many folks on here insist "they will live their lives as they see fit" , but do not think others should 
have the same consideration. Assisted suicide is not an easy choice, but it truly is no one's business but the one dealing
with that choice. If safeguards are in place and they truly are facing a terminal diagnosis, why is that a concern to others
not involved.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> @Danaus29, not trying to put you on the spot but I think your responses aren't relevant to Canada's MAID policies and required criteria. I also think you don't know how a helpless person can do research and kill their own self without assistance from other people, and that's why you sidestepped that issue. The only resort that people have in such a helpless and desperate situation is starvation and there is nothing peaceful and painless about that.
> 
> I'm truly sorry about the betrayal that happened to your mother-in-law. 😢 If her degredation and humiliation that you witnessed was also witnessed by other family members I don't understand why nobody in the family was able to step up to the plate to defend and intervene on her behalf.
> 
> ...


My concern with the MAID policy is the potential for abuse by both patients and doctors. Are you aware of this line in the policy?

"You do *not* need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying."





__





Medical assistance in dying - Canada.ca


About medical assistance in dying and the new legislation.




www.canada.ca





I can understand those who face a drawn-out lingering death wanting to end it all earlier. I have watched several family members go through long roads to death. But Canada keeps making AS easier and more accesible. If a person is capable of jumping through all the hoops required by the system, they can research ways to do it themselves. 

As for my mother in law, I was the only one that told the hospital people to unhook her iv and just leave her alone. I was the one who did the research about finding a hospice group that didn't require a DNR (hospice cannot legally refuse patients who won't sign a DNR). I was the one that reported the hospital personnel. I was the one who arranged for the revocation of the DNR. 

She was pretty much out of it at the end and I have no idea what she felt or how much she heard.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> Danaus29, you are incorrect. Assisted suicide IS legal in some states in the US.
> 
> What happened to your mother in law was awful and probably illegal. Someone should have stepped in to help her.
> NO ONE should have the right to force someone to sign a DNR.
> ...


I stand corrected. AS is legal is a few states.





__





Medical assistance in dying - Canada.ca


About medical assistance in dying and the new legislation.




www.canada.ca





I want to argue against suicide, with every fiber of my being. Some will probably point out later than there are inconsistencies in my statements and they will be right. I know if I was paralyzed from the neck down I would not want to continue living. If my brain was damaged beyond repair, I have no wish to be kept alive by machines. If I was diagnosed with a hopeless and incurable disease I would refuse treatment that would prolong my suffering.

I don't believe there really is a right or wrong regarding AS _for dying, terminally ill patients_. I would hope there is a system to help those with mental illness or seriously debilitating conditions besides AS. I don't want to see patients pushed into accepting AS when they might have other options. And I would hope that people who attempt self suicide would be given treatment instead of left to die in a corner.

edited to add the words in italics.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I find it a bit ironic that some of those who support assisted suicide for whatever reason also support covid vaccines. If I want to kill myself with covid, is it really anyone's business?


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

As long as you don't give whatever you have to someone else and kill them, it is no one's business but your own.
(Notice I did not say Covid, that meant anything that can be passed from one to another)

I do not think that AS should be considered and easy way out. Some of the reasons you mentioned previously for
people choosing it are ridiculous. But I do think in the right situation, it should be an option. That's all.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

So am I misunderstanding the thread? I realize Canada hasn't actually legalized it for minors, but I also thought that there was a reason why the author included this....



> In 2017, we learned of the sad case of Charlie Gard, an infant born with a rare and severe genetic disorder. Even though his parents had raised the money for an experimental treatment overseas, British authorities refused to release the boy to his mom and dad, saying he deserved to “die with dignity.”


So we're discussing this, right? Where does everyone draw the line? We already know that The Western Left has moved toward allowing gender transition without parental consent, and the UK made the decision above once before. Is this next or what? Do we believe in an individual's self determination from birth to whenever they decide they want to die? If that isn't where this is going, okay then.


----------



## bman (Jan 3, 2022)

LOL


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

My ONLY issue with the exigence of assisted suicide is that the topic is being given to the medical industry. If we’ve learned nothing in the last two years it’s that the medical industry does not have health and well-being front-of-mind, and that it’s become just another branch of an overstepping, fascistic government.

Sure, there are individual medical professionals who still have the best interest of their patients at heart, but the Deep State of the industry for which they work absolutely does not. Allowing the medical industry to not only have a podium at the debate, but letting them stand in as an authority on the matter can only lead to bad things.

Any sound-minded adult who wished to stop living should have safe and effective means to do so, without posthumous judgement. The problem lies in letting the medical industry and/or the government, which are really just two fangs of the same serpent, carry themselves as if they have some say in the matter. Let the government, or it’s cronies in the medical industry, think they have a word to say here, and they will dominate the discussion and use it as permission for “efficiencies” that we never would have granted them in the first place.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

One of the things I marvel at most is the human instinct for hope and survival. When does that inherit trait transform into the desire to give up? Is it facing the reality that there is absolutely no hope whatsoever

_She reached down and picked the gun up_​_That lay smoking in his hand_​_She said, "Father please forgive me_​_I can't make it without my man"_​_And she knew the gun was empty_​_And she knew she couldn't win_​_But her final prayer was answered_​_When the rifles fired again _​​- Seven Spanish Angels​Written By​Eddie Setser & Troy Seals​


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> One of the things I marvel at most is the human instinct for hope and survival. When does that inherit trait transform into the desire to give up? Is it facing the reality that there is absolutely no hope whatsoever


Hope for what? Better health? Tomorrow? The afterlife? Not everyone has a static definition, although society works hard at creating an official version.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

BadOregon said:


> Assisted suicide is not an easy choice, but it truly is no one's business but the one dealing
> with that choice. If safeguards are in place and they truly are facing a terminal diagnosis, why is that a concern to others
> not involved.


My sentiments, exactly.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Hope for what? Better health? Tomorrow? The afterlife? Not everyone has a static definition, although society works hard at creating an official version.


Hope is an individual thing as each of us are. I would not let "society" define what "hope" means for me.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The problem lies in letting the medical industry and/or the government, which are really just two fangs of the same serpent, carry themselves as if they have some say in the matter.


The decision should be made by the patient alone. Neither the medical industry, nor the government should have any say whatsoever. Nor should the rest of society.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I can guess, but I am not going to assume like you did that what was posted said more than it did.


I misunderstood the thread. I thought your response here...



painterswife said:


> Do you believe that an individual has the right to determine whether to live or not?


Was a response to the article, which included the infamous story of the UK doctors choosing to kill a parents' child instead of letting them take the child to the States for an experimental treatment.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

kinderfeld said:


> The assumption seems to be that allowing people to determine the time and manner of their own death is somehow a slippery slope to the nazi Germany program of eradicating the "useless eaters" of society. Not a concern everyone shares. But, some people see slippery slopes everywhere.


The incidents in Canada would certainly demonstrate that the slippery slope is greased, and folks are already sliding down at rapid speed.

Or do you also attribute that to "see[ing] slippery slopes everywhere"?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

kinderfeld said:


> The decision should be made by the patient alone. Neither the medical industry, nor the government should have any say whatsoever. Nor should the rest of society.


What benefit would the government have in a person's decision? The cynical side of me might suspect a financial, a cultural and societal motive, maybe even political.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> The decision should be made by the patient alone. Neither the medical industry, nor the government should have any say whatsoever. Nor should the rest of society.


I am not sure how to say this properly so understand this is not combative just trying to understand.

Do you think that the method ( say drugs) to end your life should be easy to get? Without any counseling?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Hope is an individual thing as each of us are. I would not let "society" define what "hope" means for me.


Yet you just posted a tweet on another thread referring to controlling the narrative. I believe you when you say you will not allow society to dictate to you. You are becoming an exception.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

wiscto said:


> So am I misunderstanding the thread? I realize Canada hasn't actually legalized it for minors, but I also thought that there was a reason why the author included this....
> 
> 
> 
> So we're discussing this, right? Where does everyone draw the line? We already know that The Western Left has moved toward allowing gender transition without parental consent, and the UK made the decision above once before. Is this next or what? Do we believe in an individual's self determination from birth to whenever they decide they want to die? If that isn't where this is going, okay then.


The OP was about, essentially, refusing treatment for and then killing off those who are "useless eaters." 

So it's not either/or, it's both/and.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Yet you just posted a tweet on another thread referring to controlling the narrative. I believe you when you say you will not allow society to dictate to you. You are becoming an exception.


I guess I should say thanks for paying attention. I enjoy the discussion.

Let's dissect the tweet

_Who understands that narrative control is power? Empire managers. Plutocrats. Propagandists. Smearmeisters. Manipulators. Abusers. Cult leaders. Bullies. Who does not understand that narrative control is power? Pretty much everyone else. This is the source of most problems. _​
Those that understand controlling the narrative take power from those that do not even know there is a "narrative". You, me, all of us not only need to recognize the formation of a narrative, but we have to consciously accept the narrative (it could all be true) or you have to build you own narrative. It is not enough to just to deny a narrative constructed by others.

I don't think I am an exception, other than maybe I speak out more often than some. I don't how many are like me, I want to think there are a lot of us. I see some here. That said, we all let "society" "dictate" to some level. I think the key is consciously deciding when we let it happen. IBM used to promote this simple little sign.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I guess I should say thanks for paying attention. I enjoy the discussion.
> 
> Let's dissect the tweet
> 
> ...


The best way to sell your narrative is to convinve the audience that it was their narrative, and you are just going along with it. Let them do all the heavy lifting for you while they get to feel intellectually superior for it.
Thus you see the effect it has over a generation's time on absolutes, right and wrong, good and evil.
Why wasn't ending one's life an issue of such weight in 1930? 1430?
Why is such importance to justify such an act dependent on counseling, a doctor's blessing or the government issuing a permit?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Here is an example of carrying the narrative.
Murder is now "Mercy" and she probably believes she thought of it all by herself.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

kinderfeld said:


> The decision should be made by the patient alone. Neither the medical industry, nor the government should have any say whatsoever. Nor should the rest of society.


I don’t disagree with that detail. My issue is that if we ever do get to a point of Liberty with regard to suicide, it will come in the form of legislation (an area where the government need not, and has no power to legislate), and will be regulated by a medical industry that has proven to only serve the pleasure of that same government.

If we allow the government to “legalize” suicide, and their medical industry to administer it, we will, inevitably and without question, end up with government sponsored murders that are called suicides. That’s not a ‘maybe’ or a slippery slope. If we let the government and their Health and Medicine cronies even weigh in on the matter, then that is 100%, without a doubt, what we will get.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Do you think that the method ( say drugs) to end your life should be easy to get? Without any counseling?


In the clinical setting, no. Not at all. Like any other medical procedure, I believe that there should be patient education and counseling. All opinions and options from a doctor presented. But in the end, once determined to be of age and of sound mind...the final decision should be the patient's alone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> In the clinical setting, no. Not at all. Like any other medical procedure, I believe that there should be patient education and counseling. All opinions and options from a doctor presented. But in the end, once determined to be of age and of sound mind...the final decision should be the patient's alone.


I agree with you. You stated that well.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> What benefit would the government have in a person's decision?


I didn't ask. 



GTX63 said:


> The cynical side of me might suspect a financial, a cultural and societal motive, maybe even political.


And like I said, the decision should be the patient's alone. 

Who's asking why the government would want to be involved?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

I think that someone that is terminally ill should be allowed to have their life medically terminated.
In 2017, my wife's cancer metastasized all over her body including her brain, liver, spine, and just about everywhere else. She was given six to eight weeks to live and at one point she asked the doctor if he could do anything (terminate her life) and a few days before she died, she asked her RN the same thing. Both declined. I would have supported her decision.
She was the most determined and bravest person I have ever known. She was Sailer of the Year in the Navy and an Engineer at Northrop. Even though she was dying, she never complained or mentioned pain.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> The decision should be made by the patient alone. Neither the medical industry, nor the government should have any say whatsoever. Nor should the rest of society.


presactalutely!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

kinderfeld said:


> And like I said, the decision should be the patient's alone.
> 
> Who's asking why the government would want to be involved?


Even before becoming a patient, it should be the person alone.
Government is always the elephant in the room. If you don't want them there, someone else invites them.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

kinderfeld said:


> Why should anyone's personal end of life decisions involve the government at all?


Mixed feelings on this... on one hand they shouldn't be involved with "personal" decisions. OTOH... if they're not involved with how and why then you end up with:



Pony said:


> Canada To Legalise Child Euthanasia WITHOUT Parental Consent
> 
> 
> In 2017, we learned of the sad case of Charlie Gard, an infant born with a rare and severe genetic disorder. Even though his parents had raised the money for an experimental treatment overseas, British authorities refused to release the boy to his mom and dad, saying he deserved to “die with...
> ...


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

BadOregon said:


> ..but it *truly is no one's business* but the one dealing with that choice. *If safeguards are in place* and they truly are facing a terminal diagnosis, why is that a concern to others
> not involved.





kinderfeld said:


> My sentiments, exactly.


My point is that "if safeguards are in place" then by default it becomes the business of those who make and enforce the safeguards... no?


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

So, perhaps a better question would be "When and why did suicide become illegal?" I understand it being frowned upon for religious reasons, but whose business is it
if you decide to do it. 
And now, instead of a pre-planned, peaceful death, is it preferable for one to jump off a bridge, drive their car into a tree, shoot themselves?... 
If a dr. assistance is required/requested, yes there have to be safeguards so that they aren't just handing out drugs to anyone who asks or who is
deemed "non-useful". 
Canada allowing children to be euthanized is NOT the same as a fully cognizant adult choosing for themselves. Apples to oranges.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Countries Where Euthanasia is Legal / Where Is Euthanasia Legal? 2022



"In many countries, euthanasia is illegal and can result in a murder conviction. However, there are some countries in which it is legal under stringent conditions. Switzerland has perhaps the least-regulated laws dealing with euthanasia, as a diagnosis is not required by the physician administering the lethal medication, and there is no age limit. Nevertheless, euthanasia is not allowed if the person advocating for doctor-assisted suicide stands to gain anything, such as an inheritance, from the person’s death.

Euthanasia is legal in Belgium for someone who is in unbearable suffering and will not recover. If that person is not terminally ill, then a one-month waiting period is required. There is no age regulation for those requesting euthanasia, but for a child to be considered, he or she must have a terminal illness.

In the Netherlands, someone who is in chronic pain and will not recover can request euthanasia, even if he or she is not terminally ill. However, the physician involved must consult with at least one independent physician to ensure that the patient meets the criteria for euthanasia. Children as young as 12 can request euthanasia, but they must have parental permission.

Luxembourg, Canada, Australia, and Colombia allow euthanasia for adults who are in unbearable suffering and who will die from their condition. In Australia, a doctor cannot bring up the prospect of euthanasia; the patient must explicitly request it – three times.

There are a few states in the United States in which euthanasia is now legal for patients who are terminally ill. In France, euthanasia is not permitted, but patients can request to be heavily sedated until they die.

Euthanasia is not a common practice and is the last resort for those who request it. Very few people die each year by euthanasia."


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

I was not referring to euthanasia or assisted suicide. I was referring to actual suicide which someone mentioned was illegal.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

BadOregon said:


> I was not referring to euthanasia or assisted suicide. I was referring to actual suicide which someone mentioned was illegal.


I wonder if attempted suicide would warrant the death penalty??


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

Faith6 said:


> but then , you also run into situations such as Alzheimers....it's a disease that is progressive but often slow...often needing to be taken care of by others at a high cost for years possibly decades....yet they are often unable to make that kind of decision on their own.... the reason I bring this up is because my dad was beginning the stages of dementia in his 80's and his health was declining....he wound up dying from Covid but it was hard to watch a Marine from the Korean War era slowly lose the dignity he had always been so proud of....but in this situation, do you let a guardian make that decision? I seriously would not want my brother to make that call


As a side note, since you brought up Alzheimer's, I suspect that proactive treatment of one the most researched and linked genetic factors is being suppressed by .gov . This info may help someone else. My grandmother (father's mother) died in 1998 at 83yo when AD couldn't be conclusively diagnosed until an autopsy of the patient's brain. She told me when I was a teenager ('79-'80 era) that she knew something was very wrong with her but that the doctors couldn't figure it out. She appeared quite healthy and she was considered by other adults to have become a hypochondriac. She was later admitted to a long term care facility for several years and exhibited classic progressive loss of functions. Her one sister that I knew died 3 years later and she had Parkinson's. Their mother died very young (31yo) and their father at 69yo. They were all of European descent, mostly German born families (same with my paternal grandfather who died young in WWII). Both AD and Parkinson's are known to be linked to the same C677T MTHFR mutation/variant. I was seeing a specialist for what I thought in 2021 were issues not at all related to either AD, chronic migraines, or chronic fatigue, let alone my chronic sinus drainage and cough that I would learn a year later was "silent" reflux affecting my larynx (all of these started in my 40's...well I _was_ 40!). So, 1 year ago I was told by the specialist that I have a single mutation/variant of the C677T MTHFR gene. (Several diseases were ruled out in 2016 when a GP took interest in my chronic fatigue, then relocated before finding a cause). I was shocked at what I learned about the C677T MTHFR mutation/variant. My father was already in the mid stage of AD and is worse now. This week after my father's wife agreed, she was able to get a 23andMe genetic test...he has the same mutation/variant. This of course, is critical information. Yet the CDC either doesn't have a clue, or is intentionally lying about "folate" and synthetic "folic acid". MTHFR Gene, Folic Acid, and Preventing Neural Tube Defects | CDC I'm a walking testament already that what they say on the website is a lie. In the last year, my severe 6-day migraines have decreased to only specific triggers from toxins -- wildfire smoke particles, polyeurethane, a new Rx after 4 weeks, and the flu shot (which when you do enough reading explains why those things). My chronic fatigue was dramatically improving only 2 weeks into beginning an l-methylfolate/methylated B12 protocol prescribed the specialist and only whole food vitamins and mostly whole food minerals (calcium and mag). The FDA mandated folate in processed shelf-stable foods back in the '90s and the goal to greatly reduced neural tube defects in babies worked...but, when all the .govs discovered the genetic mutation/variant in 25% of Spanish American descent people and 10-15% of other Europeans in the U.S., did they make adjustments to their "folate" "folic acid" recommendations? You can read, NOT. Nih.gov is fully aware that the Spain study of 25% of that country's population has it, the highest of any European country. The earliest publication I found on nih.gov linking AD to the MTHFR genetic mutation/variant goes back to 2001. My father is being prescribed "experimental drugs", yet the docs know he will not get better, they're only prolonging the prognosis. My serum folate levels were off the charts (apparently building up in my body) when I was taking synthetic "folic acid" and every year I was worse off than the one before for more than a decade. The CDC is lying. Early on in my search for answers, I read on a CDC page that they did not recommend having MTHFR testing (although I can't find that one at this time). All of this is quite suspicious when there are many functional medicine and naturopath medical docs in this country providing patients with testing, proactive supplements, monitoring and brain scans. My ancestry results don't show any Spain connections, but my father and paternal grandmother (and her sister with PD) were all black haired, brown eyed and I'm dark brown haired, brown eyed. My mother is deceased, but there is no history on her side, other than my maternal grandfather (mostly Irish, some German) who died of a heart attack at 56yo on the farm. Maybe I'll be an AD patient one day too or I'll die of something else before I hit 80yo, but what I do know is that we should be told the truth, not just what .gov and friends have chosen not to "prove".


----------



## bman (Jan 3, 2022)

LOL


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

painterswife said:


> ... Euthanasia is not a common practice and is the last resort for those who request it. Very few people die each year by euthanasia."


It's not common practise _yet_ but euthanasia pods have been developed and I've seen advertising for them being marketed in countries like Switzerland. They're called sarco devices or sarco pods - short for sarcophagus pods and they look like little futuristic space shuttles out of some science fiction movie.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarco_pod



.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My issue is that if we ever do get to a point of Liberty with regard to suicide, it will come in the form of legislation


I agree. Even if it's the fed recognizing that they really have no constitutional authority on the matter. I think it would be similar to what took place with the SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If we allow the government to “legalize” suicide...


This is the part the irritates me. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...we will, inevitably and without question, end up with government sponsored murders that are called suicides.


More so than we do now? Maybe.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The obvious evolution is that the government sanctions it, allocates centers for it, provides counseling, a network, etc, supporting those groups it deems approved, while collecting fees and taxes for the service. Bureaucracy is a weed of deep roots.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Bureaucracy is a weed of deep roots.


It spreads wildly with rhizomes and seeds and lives during all four seasons


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Bureaucracy is a weed of deep roots.





HDRider said:


> It spreads wildly with rhizomes and seeds and lives during all four seasons


----------



## RoBlaine (Mar 24, 2015)

Do a web search on "mouse utopia experiment" and see in what general direction we are headed. The differences between this social experiment from 1968/1970 and today are that mice don't have religion or politics or science or technology as controlling measures. 
My question regarding the experiment is, what differentiating effects of religion, science and politics will there be on our society?
We're closing in on the 8 billion mark for world population. According to the estimates that puts us over the point of no return and on the slide to inevitable societal collapse without drastic measures being taken. Just what are those drastic measures??
Possible clues are the China experiment where all couples were limited to one child and societal bias leaned toward that one child being male, which made abortion of females common. Today, China has a glut of males and that's creating a problem of the next generation's population dropping quite drastically. The UN is pushing abortion rights clauses into nearly all of their legislation for international acceptance. There is a minor movement that's looking at post-birth "abortions" because there are 'problems' that can't be discovered until after birth and after some physical and mental development of the child. By the way, if it weren't for the China experiment, our population would be well over 8 billion today. Oh, and there's that other China experiment, the Wuhan experiment we're living and dying through at the moment.
If religion has sway, freedom prevails, our population will continue to grow and collapse is guaranteed. If politics has sway, control prevails and only the elite population will be able to grow and others will be suppressed, probably to the point of extinction or slavery. If science has sway, only the best will be allowed to procreate and that 'best' may involve genetic engineering, which will alter **** sapiens to the point of eradication in favor of artificial evolution or eugenics. Other types of scientific population control is of course biological as evidenced by Wuhan, chemical, as we can see in the food and water additives and other medically prescribed additives, and no doubt psychological as in mental manipulation through major media such as news and social media. There is another alternative and that involves technological intelligence or artificial intelligence. Who knows how many avenues that could take?
Where is humanity headed? If we don't do something, collapse is inevitable. If we pick the wrong routes, unspeakable evil is inevitable, unless we can be conditioned to accept unspeakable evil, as is also currently in evidence. BLM; Burning, Looting and Murdering is very acceptable and highly supported while free speech is not. We can see politics is making it's move and it's following the pattern of the utopia experiment, anarchy. As things get progressively worse, more and more frightened fools will look for politics (big government) to fix things. I'm very afraid that's the way this is going to go.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> The obvious evolution is that the government sanctions it, allocates centers for it, provides counseling, a network, etc, supporting those groups it deems approved, while collecting fees and taxes for the service. Bureaucracy is a weed of deep roots.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

RoBlaine said:


> Do a web search on "mouse utopia experiment" and see in what general direction we are headed. The differences between this social experiment from 1968/1970 and today are that mice don't have religion or politics or science or technology as controlling measures.
> My question regarding the experiment is, what differentiating effects of religion, science and politics will there be on our society?
> We're closing in on the 8 billion mark for world population. According to the estimates that puts us over the point of no return and on the slide to inevitable societal collapse without drastic measures being taken. Just what are those drastic measures??
> Possible clues are the China experiment where all couples were limited to one child and societal bias leaned toward that one child being male, which made abortion of females common. Today, China has a glut of males and that's creating a problem of the next generation's population dropping quite drastically. The UN is pushing abortion rights clauses into nearly all of their legislation for international acceptance. There is a minor movement that's looking at post-birth "abortions" because there are 'problems' that can't be discovered until after birth and after some physical and mental development of the child. By the way, if it weren't for the China experiment, our population would be well over 8 billion today. Oh, and there's that other China experiment, the Wuhan experiment we're living and dying through at the moment.
> ...


As a psych major who did a couple of semesters raising rats to study behaviors, I am quite familiar with the Rodent Utopia situation.

Too much luxury creates soft, rudderless men, just as it created havoc in the world of mice.

As Browning wrote in his poem _Andrea del Sarto_, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

bman said:


> The source of it is Luciferianism.


How so?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

bman said:


> Lucifer's revenge on God comes in the form of oppressing the life spirit of God's greatest creation -- mankind. The goal is to keep us alive, to distort our DNA and combine us with machines, while corrupting our souls... without killing us.


And if you're calling from west of The Rockies...


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)




----------



## bman (Jan 3, 2022)

kinderfeld said:


> How so?


Did you fail to read my entire post? Here is the part you must have missed...

In March 2020, the G7 countries adopted UN Agenda 2030 as the global solution to the pandemic. Only one of the 17 sustainability goals (SDGs) of UN Agenda 2030 has anything to do with health.

In Rio in 1992 when an earlier version of the agenda rolled out (Agenda 21; its origins purportedly go back to the 1928 meeting of the COMINTERN in Moscow) the UN launched the Earth Charter (https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/key_docs/earth_charter.pdf), a replacement for the 10 Commandments. The Ark of Hope (Link) that was revealed is a replacement for the Ark of the Covenant . It should be noted that the UN receives its spiritual guidance from Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust) , a prominent NGO of the UN. Alice Bailey, a loyal follower of famed Luciferian Madame Blavatsky, created Lucis Trust. Blavatsky's esoteric writings, which came from channeling a spirit entity (a demon most likely), were used to create the Earth Charter, which is today the spiritual epicenter of the UN.

Here's a supporting vid, for those who can't read or research on their own.








Lucis Trust New World Order AntiChrist / Hugo Talks


Subscribe to Website - https://hugotalks.com Support me on PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/hugotalks Merch - https://my-store-11735281.creator-spring.com/ BITCHUTE - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/K71ziEYUpNSo/ TELEGRAM CHANNEL - https://t.me/hu…




www.bitchute.com


----------



## bman (Jan 3, 2022)

LOL


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

bman said:


> kinderfeld said:
> 
> 
> > And if you're calling from west of The Rockies...
> ...







__





Loading…






m.youtube.com


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Not sure why folks are always trying to tell others what they should do be it abortion, how they live, how they die, who they marry, etc,. You don't want to do something then don't but leave me the heck out of your decisions - period! I for one have no intention of ending up in a nursing home or wasting away in a hospital bed. When life is no longer worth living then I fully intend to take things into my own hands. It would sure be nice if I had the help of a doctor who knows how to handle it painlessly and peacefully.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

bman said:


> Are you trying to say that everyone who lives west of the Rockies is an idiot? *How did you arrive at this conclusion?* Please be specific. I live in the Rockies.


How did you conclude that I arrived at that conclusion?
Check out post #104. GunMonkey got the reference.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Pony said:


> This is, as the above story noted, not isolated, out-of-the-norm incidents.
> 
> A 61 year old man was killed for the medical condition of "hearing loss." Hardly something that leads to death.
> 
> ...



I am having a hard time believing some of these stories. Where I come from (Netherlands) assisted suicide has been legal for at least 30 years. However, there is a process and protocol that must be followed. First the primary care doctor makes his/her assessment, then a second opinion is required. If both health providers agree that the patient is at a point where life becomes unbearable, it gets sent to a special government panel comprised of miscellaneous medical experts that decides whether or not the patient can proceed.

It is not as if people wake up one morning and decide to "off" grandma or a depressed person wants to end his/her life and can proceed immediately.

I expect Canada and other countries who allow assisted suïcide and even the states in this country that allow it have similar stringent protocol.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Dutchie said:


> I am having a hard time believing some of these stories. Where I come from (Netherlands) assisted suicide has been legal for at least 30 years. However, there is a process and protocol that must be followed. First the primary care doctor makes his/her assessment, then a second opinion is required. If both health providers agree that the patient is at a point where life becomes unbearable, it gets sent to a special government panel comprised of miscellaneous medical experts that decides whether or not the patient can proceed.
> 
> It is not as if people wake up one morning and decide to "off" grandma or a depressed person wants to end his/her life and can proceed immediately.
> 
> I expect Canada and other countries who allow assisted suïcide and even the states in this country that allow it have similar stringent protocol.


If you have a hard time believing the stories, perhaps you could do the research to refute them.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

bman said:


> the UN launched the Earth Charter (https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/key_docs/earth_charter.pdf), a replacement for the 10 Commandments.


I read it.
Not seeing anything about replacing the ten commandments.



bman said:


> The Ark of Hope (Link) that was revealed is a replacement for the Ark of the Covenant .


Very interesting. But I didn't see where they were saying that it is intended as a replacement for the ark of the covenant. 



bman said:


> Alice Bailey, a loyal follower of famed Luciferian Madame Blavatsky, created Lucis Trust.


Blavatsky was more of a spiritualist than a "Luciferian". 

Don't see the big deal here, nor anything nefarious about it. I would encourage anyone to check it out for themselves before drawing any conclusions.




__





Lucis Trust


The Lucis Trust is dedicated to the establishment of a new and better way of life for everyone in the world based on the fulfillment of the divine plan for humanity.




www.lucistrust.org


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

bman said:


> Here's a supporting vid, for those who can't read or research on their own.


"LUCIS TRUST NEW WORLD ORDER ANTICHRIST"
I'm sure that this "supporting vid" is completely balanced and objective. Not the least bit biased.🙄


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

bman said:


> Here's a supporting vid, for those who can't read or research on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not buying the bull you're trying to sell us does not mean we can't read or do our own research.

Just FYI... you lost me when you posted the leader of Larouche's private intelligence network as a useful source.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Miss Kay said:


> Not sure why folks are always trying to tell others what they should do be it abortion, how they live, how they die, who they marry, etc,. You don't want to do something then don't but leave me the heck out of your decisions - period! I for one have no intention of ending up in a nursing home or wasting away in a hospital bed. When life is no longer worth living then I fully intend to take things into my own hands. It would sure be nice if I had the help of a doctor who knows how to handle it painlessly and peacefully.


Of course I agree in cases of two consenting adults, or, an adult of sound mind deciding what to do with his/her body be it end ones life, use drugs, etc.., but, Abortion is not the same, there is other life at stake and that life should be given attention and protection.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I am not sure how to say this properly so understand this is not combative just trying to understand.
> 
> Do you think that the method ( say drugs) to end your life should be easy to get? Without any counseling?


It is easy to get and kills many....fentanyl, it's everywhere and cheap.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> It is easy to get and kills many....fentanyl, it's everywhere and cheap.


Pretty sure she was talking medical assisted suicide in the clinical setting and the laws and ethics governing it. But, yes. Your DIY method would have the same end result for the patient. Although, it could possibly cause issues from a legal standpoint.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kinderfeld said:


> Pretty sure she was talking medical assisted suicide in the clinical setting and the laws and ethics governing it. But, yes. Your DIY method would have the same end result for the patient. Although,* it could possibly cause issues from a legal standpoint.*


It would cause legal issues because it means one or more other people (family, friends, medical persons, etc.) could be investigated and charged with complicity. If the person who applies for medically assisted death is denied and then obtains fentanyl and offs their self with it that means the fentanyl had to be provided by somebody else. The sick person can't make it just magically appear by wishing for it, it had to come from another person who becomes complicit in a crime.

.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It would cause legal issues because it means one or more other people (family, friends, medical persons, etc.) could be investigated and charged with complicity. If the person who applies for medically assisted death is denied and then obtains fentanyl and offs their self with it that means the fentanyl had to be provided by somebody else. The sick person can't make it just magically appear by wishing for it, it had to come from another person who becomes complicit in a crime.


Where fentanyl overdoses are concerned, many places are charging drug dealers with murder.
And, some life insurance companies may not pay claims when suicide is the cause of death.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

kinderfeld said:


> Pretty sure she was talking medical assisted suicide in the clinical setting and the laws and ethics governing it. But, yes. Your DIY method would have the same end result for the patient. Although, it could possibly cause issues from a legal standpoint.


Just pointing out that suicide is easy if you really want to do it. Fentanyl is easy to get, painless, and fairly cheap. Drug dealers don't care about you!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It would cause legal issues because it means one or more other people (family, friends, medical persons, etc.) could be investigated and charged with complicity. If the person who applies for medically assisted death is denied and then obtains fentanyl and offs their self with it that means the fentanyl had to be provided by somebody else. The sick person can't make it just magically appear by wishing for it, it had to come from another person who becomes complicit in a crime.
> 
> .


Drug dealers don't care! Here in Los Angeles, our DA Gascon, refuses to prosecute most criminals, so they feel free to do whatever they want with impunity. Mexican drug cartels don't care either. It's plentiful and easily obtained.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Drug dealers don't care! Here in Los Angeles, our DA Gascon, refuses to prosecute most criminals, so they feel free to do whatever they want with impunity. Mexican drug cartels don't care either. It's plentiful and easily obtained.


Jeffrey, I'm not talking about drug dealers and drug cartels and I don't care about them. They can all drop dead in their tracks for all I care about them, and good riddance to them. I don't understand why you even brought them up since they aren't relevant to the issue and nobody in their right mind would go to drug dealers to obtain their filthy toxin laden poisons to assist a beloved family member or dear friend to achieve a clean and peaceful death. The very thought of it is nauseating. 

I'm talking about what may be considered complicity in a murder on the parts of grief stricken and desperate loved ones who are trying to help someone sick and in agonizing dire straits who is begging to be allowed to die. By obtaining and then providing a means to fulfill the wish of the sick person to die peacefully and non-violently with dignity and mercy the compassionate loved ones of the suiciding person can be charged with complicity to murder the dead loved one.

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Jeffrey, I'm not talking about drug dealers and drug cartels and I don't care about them. They can all drop dead in their tracks for all I care about them, and good riddance to them. I don't understand why you even brought them up since they aren't relevant to the issue and nobody in their right mind would go to drug dealers to obtain their filthy toxin laden poisons to assist a beloved family member or dear friend to achieve a clean and peaceful death. The very thought of it is nauseating.
> 
> I'm talking about what may be considered complicity in a murder on the parts of grief stricken and desperate loved ones who are trying to help someone sick and in agonizing dire straits who is begging to be allowed to die. By obtaining and then providing a means to fulfill the wish of the sick person to die peacefully and non-violently with dignity and mercy the compassionate loved ones of the suiciding person can be charged with complicity to murder the dead loved one.
> 
> .


Sure their relevant. Were talking about assisted suicide. Im just pointing out that if someone wants to off themselves, its really easy and painless. Im also pointing out that dealers don't care, so that issue of culpability is taken out if the equation, as are the family members. Fentanyl is cheap and easy to get. Much cheaper than going to a doctor to take your life. Vomit away!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Fentanyl is used by doctors to end human lives. The one in Columbus was found not guilty of murder after overdosing more than 20 patients with fentanyl.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> Fentanyl is used by doctors to end human lives. The one in Columbus was found not guilty of murder after overdosing more than 20 patients with fentanyl.


Sure, but doctors have access and would use pure medical grade fentanyl if they're going to administer any fentanyl at all. Not street garbage fentanyl that drug dealers have cut and adulterated with baking soda or laundry detergents and god knows what other kinds of toxins. 

For legal medical assistance in dying fentanyl isn't commonly used anyway, at least it isn't used in Canada. There are a whole bunch of protocols in place about what different kinds of drugs are allowed and will be administered and about the order and timing in which they must be administered because each med has a specific purpose within the order and time frames dictated. For example:

From Medications and dosages used in medical assistance in dying: a cross-sectional study



> The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers recommends fixed dosing of midazolam (an anxiolytic), 10 mg; propofol (an anesthetic coma-inducing agent), 1000 mg; and rocuronium, 200 mg, or cisatracurium, 40 mg (neuromuscular blockers to stop respiration). A scoping review showed that, although virtually all Canadian MAiD protocols use kits with fixed dosages of medications, including an anesthetic (propofol or phenobarbital) and a paralytic, along with a secondary “backup kit” in case of failure, there are variations in the inclusion of anxiolytics (e.g., midazolam), analgesia (e.g., lidocaine, magnesium sulfate) and cardiotoxic medications (e.g., bupivacaine, potassium chloride). These variations in choice of medication and administration technique may play an important role in ensuring a comfortable and dignified death.


.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Sure, but doctors have access and would use pure medical grade fentanyl if they're going to administer any fentanyl at all. Not street garbage fentanyl that drug dealers have cut and adulterated with baking soda or laundry detergents and god knows what other kinds of toxins.
> 
> For legal medical assistance in dying fentanyl isn't commonly used anyway, at least it isn't used in Canada. There are a whole bunch of protocols in place about what different kinds of drugs are allowed and will be administered and about the order and timing in which they must be administered because each med has a specific purpose within the order and time frames dictated. For example:
> 
> ...


You outlined exactly the problem with doctor assisted suicide. Too many layers of bureaucracy with all their fingers in the pie causing it to be expensive. Street fentanyl in America tends to be pretty strong. A pin head of it will kill you. My brother in law hung himself, I had to clean it up. My dear friend and racing teammate shot himself at the age of 22. I've lost a number of people close to me to suicide. Fentanyl would have been a better choice for them. Those dying from illnesses have my sympathy. Those that hate life and want to die are simply selfish cowards.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Just pointing out that suicide is easy if you really want to do it. Fentanyl is easy to get, painless, and fairly cheap. Drug dealers don't care about you!


Yes. But all of that is beside the point. We're discussing assisted suicide as a legitimate, legally recognized end of life decision.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

kinderfeld said:


> Why should anyone's personal end of life decisions involve the government at all?


It shouldnt in an ideal world, but it does. Thats why blindfolded libertarianism can lead us into a totalitarian society.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Pony said:


> If you have a hard time believing the stories, perhaps you could do the research to refute them.


Oh, I have done the research. My father passed away with the help of assisted euthanization. He had terminal cancer and in enormous pain. After going through the protocol his doctor upped his morphine and he passed away peacefully. This was 30-35 years ago. Since then I have known several people who chose to die that way.

When we have an animal in pain, the most humane thing we can do is to euthanize it. Why do we insist on people suffering?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Dutchie said:


> Oh, I have done the research. My father passed away with the help of assisted euthanization. He had terminal cancer and in enormous pain. After going through the protocol his doctor upped his morphine and he passed away peacefully. This was 30-35 years ago. Since then I have known several people who chose to die that way.
> 
> When we have an animal in pain, the most humane thing we can do is to euthanize it. Why do we insist on people suffering?


I would be charged if I let an animal suffer as badly as I have seen terminal patients suffer and somehow we are supposed to believe there it’s somehow right or ethical.


----------

