Right to die - Page 3

Alex · 10-08-2005, 08:24 PM

An Advance Directive is the complete opposite of suicide, so it isn't really relevant.

An advance directive says that if you're going to die anyway to let you die. Assisted suicide say that if you're going to live anyway (at least for now) to let you die.

As for botched attempts, yes, if you are allowed personal freedom of choice that means taking on the risk that you'll not be very good at it. It makes no sense though, that you are not allowed to decide that it is better to be dead than alive. At best you are given a chance to convince a doctor that it is better for you to be dead than alive. Nor does it make sense that we are allowed to passively commit suicide (by refusing chemotherapy, for example) but not actively commit suicide (by cutting our veins open while taking a pleasant bath).

Claire · 10-20-2005, 01:52 AM

I voted for and support Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and I'm annoyed that there is so much effort being put forth to get rid of it. I remember when John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General and the first thing he said was on his agenda was to get Oregon's law blocked.....I thought to myself....wow, that's the first thing on your agenda, big guy?

Ugh.

The law has a lot of support in our state....I can't believe other states haven't passed similar laws....not that it'll matter, because apparently states' rights no longer count.

Alex · 10-20-2005, 07:17 AM

I'm curious, since boths sides tend to only believe in federalism when the federal government is trying to block a state law they personally like (it is a state issue to decide when doctors can kill patients, but it is a federal/constitutional issue to decide when mothers can kill fetuses, or vice versa depending on party; it is a federal issue that pharmacists be required to sell birth control but a state issue that pharmacists be able to sell marijuana, or vice versa depending on party).

States rights do mean something, but it is just something more than "states rights are paramount when I like the law and hick provincialism when I don't." Since I've never seen anybody here give enough examples on when they think states' rights are paramount I am not speaking of anybody specific, just in generalities about when I see "states' rights" generally invoked.

To me, this one isn't a federalism question at all. The Oregon law is a travesty against personal freedom (wrapped up to pretend that it is an extenion of personal freedom). It isn't an issue on which either the federal government or state governments should be making laws, the right to termination resides with the individual, not the medical-bureaucratic complex. We've foolishly medicalized a non-medical action.

10-08-2005, 08:24 PM	#21
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	An Advance Directive is the complete opposite of suicide, so it isn't really relevant. An advance directive says that if you're going to die anyway to let you die. Assisted suicide say that if you're going to live anyway (at least for now) to let you die. As for botched attempts, yes, if you are allowed personal freedom of choice that means taking on the risk that you'll not be very good at it. It makes no sense though, that you are not allowed to decide that it is better to be dead than alive. At best you are given a chance to convince a doctor that it is better for you to be dead than alive. Nor does it make sense that we are allowed to passively commit suicide (by refusing chemotherapy, for example) but not actively commit suicide (by cutting our veins open while taking a pleasant bath).
	Submit to Quotes

10-20-2005, 01:52 AM	#22
Claire Shagilicious Disneyland!! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Fulfilling my destiny..... Posts: 740	I voted for and support Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and I'm annoyed that there is so much effort being put forth to get rid of it. I remember when John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General and the first thing he said was on his agenda was to get Oregon's law blocked.....I thought to myself....wow, that's the first thing on your agenda, big guy? Ugh. The law has a lot of support in our state....I can't believe other states haven't passed similar laws....not that it'll matter, because apparently states' rights no longer count. __________________ Miles: It tastes like the back of a fing L.A. school bus. Now they probably didn't de-stem, hoping for some semblance of concentration, crushed it up with leaves and mice, and then wound up with this rancid tar and turpentine bull**. Fin' Raid. Jack: Tastes pretty good to me.
	Submit to Quotes

10-20-2005, 07:17 AM	#23
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm curious, since boths sides tend to only believe in federalism when the federal government is trying to block a state law they personally like (it is a state issue to decide when doctors can kill patients, but it is a federal/constitutional issue to decide when mothers can kill fetuses, or vice versa depending on party; it is a federal issue that pharmacists be required to sell birth control but a state issue that pharmacists be able to sell marijuana, or vice versa depending on party). States rights do mean something, but it is just something more than "states rights are paramount when I like the law and hick provincialism when I don't." Since I've never seen anybody here give enough examples on when they think states' rights are paramount I am not speaking of anybody specific, just in generalities about when I see "states' rights" generally invoked. To me, this one isn't a federalism question at all. The Oregon law is a travesty against personal freedom (wrapped up to pretend that it is an extenion of personal freedom). It isn't an issue on which either the federal government or state governments should be making laws, the right to termination resides with the individual, not the medical-bureaucratic complex. We've foolishly medicalized a non-medical action.
	Submit to Quotes