# No More Death with Dignity...



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2004)

The Bush Administration would like to fight the physician assisted suicide law in Oregon.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/09/06/prsc0906.htm



> Legal action connected to Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort to stop assisted suicide in Oregon may finally get to the Supreme Court now that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ashcroft's request to rehear the case before an 11-judge panel.



Is this the ethical thing to do?  Is this just another attempt by the christian right to control how people do things?  Does this truly violate the Hippocratic Oath?

What do you think?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 10, 2004)

How well did Kevorkian fair in Michigan?

If you go by the books, Assisted Suicide is not much different than deactivating life support.  They're causing a patient to expire when they don't have the means and ability to do it themselves, and it's too painful (emotionally, physically, or financially) to keep them going.  In every case I've read, there is family consent as well.

Honestly, as long as there is justifiable cause (such as a terminal and debihiltating illness), I don't think it's the right of the government to tell someone they don't have control over their own life.  

but what do I know... I voted for Kerry...   :idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2004)

For one to participate in assisted suicide, one must pass a psychological exam amongst other things to determine that one is not just depressed about their situation.

  Why not die with dignity?  Isn't that what we all want?

 I suppose dying with dignity means something different to each of us. For some of us it means going down fighting, kicking and screaming. For some of us it means knowing when there is no longer any possibility of your winning the war. And I suppose the circumstance matters a great deal.

  Death is a door and I think "we" fear it so much that this belies our rejection of the inevitable.

 Assisted suicide has been happening for a very, very long time - it's just never been out in the open. Many have been caught, convicted of murder and sent to prison and even been executed for helping someone to meet their maker a littler earlier.

  Goodness.  What savages deny a person dignity?


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 10, 2004)

Anyone that I have ever talked to supports euthanasia.  I don't know where the non-support comes from.  I have never spoken to a non-supporter.

I can understand having reservations, wanting to ensure there are sufficient checks in the system that only those wanting to go, go, but as Shesulsa said, who could deny a human their dignity?
From this site, the contemporary version of the Hippocratic Oath, for reference:




> I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
> 
> I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 10, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Goodness.  What savages deny a person dignity?




The same people who would put down their dog or other animal such as a horse with a broken leg when things are bad. Yet, they personally cannot deal with the loss or the grief, and hang onto the person. 

I think there should be a good list of questions and requirements, I also think it Humane to help our other humans out of pain when there is no help or hope. Now for instance a Brain Alive Coma patient should be left alive for even though they may spend the rest of their life in a coma, they have a chance to "wake up" and be alright. 

As to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, he made some mistakes and he is now in Jail/Prison. Yet, for many more than people thougt possible he was able to help people and stay out of Jail/Prison.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Bush Administration would like to fight the physician assisted suicide law in Oregon.
> http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/09/06/prsc0906.htm
> Is this the ethical thing to do?  Is this just another attempt by the christian right to control how people do things?  Does this truly violate the Hippocratic Oath?
> What do you think?
> upnorthkyosa


still painting Christians as the attempted "overlords" of our society?
Oh well...
I think you are wrong.
You think I am.
It will probably stay that way.... so lets move on anyway.

This Christian (Me, your Brother, John), who is on the right, probably agrees with you. I don't think it unethical to allow a person to end their life when their quality of life and chance for reversal is Nil. But the qualifications MUST be very specific and met to the -T- ! Mere depression (as horrible as that may be) is not a reason.

Since it seems you agree, then what do You feel would be the proper, ethical, reasons to do this? What qualifications need to be met?

Your Brother
John


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> How well did Kevorkian fair in Michigan?
> 
> If you go by the books, Assisted Suicide is not much different than deactivating life support. They're causing a patient to expire when they don't have the means and ability to do it themselves, and it's too painful (emotionally, physically, or financially) to keep them going. In every case I've read, there is family consent as well.
> 
> ...


It is a subtle thing but the difference between assisted suicide and shutting off life support is action.  In the first, you are actively causing the death of a human being - that is your intention.  In the second, you are letting the body go through the natural/biological process (and for some allowing that opportunity for 'miraculous' things to happen).

Suicide is illegal.  Assisted suicide is illegal for the most part.

This is an interesting question because it brings into conflict the idea that governments are there to protect the individual life as well as (in a democracy) their civil liberties.  This is, essentially the same values/ideals that underly the abortion issue - choice or life preservation.


----------



## someguy (Nov 10, 2004)

No two people are alike.  Each of us values life differently.  I'm sure none of use don't value life alot but to some it means differnt things than it does for others.
I see no reason to judge your lifes value and say if I should force you to live on.  Actually I would be robbing you of freedom to control the end of your life.  
I would probably keep going under most every circumstance but I am not everyone else.
Do as you will with your life as long as It does not harm me.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> No two people are alike. Each of us values life differently. I'm sure none of use don't value life alot but to some it means differnt things than it does for others.
> I see no reason to judge your lifes value and say if I should force you to live on. Actually I would be robbing you of freedom to control the end of your life.
> I would probably keep going under most every circumstance but I am not everyone else.
> Do as you will with your life as long as It does not harm me.


It would be interesting to see how a person (in general, not you or anyone here in particular) could rationalize the contrast if his position on abortion (which is ending a life by intentional choice and not biological process) and his position on assisted suicide (euthenasia?) if they differ.


----------



## someguy (Nov 10, 2004)

Actually it wouldn't be to hard
Ending a persons life by choice or ending a persons life when they have no choice.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> still painting Christians as the attempted "overlords" of our society?
> Oh well...
> I think you are wrong.
> You think I am.
> ...



My intent in starting this debate was not to bash the Christian Right.  I wanted to see if there was a separation of this issue from religion.  Loki brought up some interesting secular points, for instance.  

Your brother

upnorthkyosa

(whose name also happens to be John)


----------



## Brother John (Nov 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is this the ethical thing to do?  Is this just another attempt by the christian right to control how people do things?
> 
> What do you think?
> upnorthkyosa



On thinking of this further, I believe that what Ashcroft is doing is most ethical and right.
WHY? 
Because it is the job of the Attourney General to uphold and enforce the existing laws... not to change or control the laws.
If assisted suicide is illegal in Oregon, then Ashcroft is simply doing his job.
If you want the law changed, it is Not done the the Attourney General's office.
IF he did change the law, he'd be overstepping his bounds and would be condemned soundly.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> My intent in starting this debate was not to bash the Christian Right.  I wanted to see if there was a separation of this issue from religion.  Loki brought up some interesting secular points, for instance.
> 
> Your brother
> upnorthkyosa
> (whose name also happens to be John)


Okay, my mistake man.

Your Brother
John

PS: Us John's stick together!  :CTF:


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2004)

The assisted suicide law in Oregon was voted IN by the people of Oregon, but overturned by the state congress - TWICE!

 The people have made their voices heard - they wish to allow assisted suicide.  But the state government in OR has once again heavy-handed the voice of the people.  This has happened many times in that state.  I lived there for a couple of years before moving north to Washington and voted for allowing assisted suicide.

 To have the government squash the wishes of the people is an earmark of fascism, is it not?

 Brother John, I am going to start a separate thread to avoide gankage regarding Christianity and politics.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Actually it wouldn't be to hard
> Ending a persons life by choice or ending a persons life when they have no choice.


That is how you could categorize the issues.  My point was about a person who says that a person should have the 'right to choose' about abortion but doesn't think that a person 'has the right to choose' in terms of 'assisted suicide.'  YOu are correct in using the choice idea as an organizing idea, but how would a person who is on one side about abortion but the other for 'euthenization' explain that contrast is my question.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The assisted suicide law in Oregon was voted IN by the people of Oregon, but overturned by the state congress - TWICE!
> 
> The people have made their voices heard - they wish to allow assisted suicide. But the state government in OR has once again heavy-handed the voice of the people. This has happened many times in that state. I lived there for a couple of years before moving north to Washington and voted for allowing assisted suicide.
> 
> ...


Facism is a bit of an over statement I would say.  People are not forced to turn everything over to the state, people are not arrested for saying "I don't agree" (though they can be held accountable for the form that their disagreement may take when it becomes 'civil disobedience' but that is a separate charge) and so on.

This is a legislative authority.  If you don't agree with this power in the hands of representatives you can vote to have it taken out.  The lack of voting/representation would be the earmark of facism IMO.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The lack of voting/representation would be the earmark of facism IMO.


 Not to be argumentative, but ... isn't the state congress overturning the voted-in legislation synonymous with lack of representation?  How have the people been adequately represented here?

 I seem to remember that OR tried to get the overturn revoked but were unsuccessful - will have to research that a bit more, though.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Not to be argumentative, but ... isn't the state congress overturning the voted-in legislation synonymous with lack of representation? How have the people been adequately represented here?
> 
> I seem to remember that OR tried to get the overturn revoked but were unsuccessful - will have to research that a bit more, though.


If you don't like the way a rep is doing business, vote him out and try getting someone who does business better in.  In a facist state, that isn't even an option.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> In a facist state, that isn't even an option.


 You're confusing fascism with dictatorship.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2004)

You're right - my bad.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> You're confusing fascism with dictatorship.


No I am not.  Facism does not include voted officials that represent the populace or it's interests.

The word _fascism_ has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that 

exalts nation A *nation* is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity. 

The name derives from Latin _natio_ and originally described the colleagues in a college or students, above all at the University of Paris, who were all born within a _pays_, spoke the same language and expected to be ruled by their own familiar law. In 1383 and 1384, while studying theology at Paris, Jean Gerson was twice elected procurator for the French _nation_ (i.e. the French-born Francophone students at the University). The Paris division of students into _nations_ was adopted at the University of Prague, where from its opening in 1349 the _studium generale_ was divided among Czech, Bavarian, Saxon and Polish _nations_.
*.....* *Click the link for more information.*  and sometimes race R.A.C.E. *R*esearch and Development in *A*dvanced *C*ommunications Technologies in *E*urope. This program was launched in 1988 by the Commission of the European Communities to pave the way for Integrated Broadband Communications in Europe. The intent was to promote high speed bandwidth and other services. In support of such a network, critical normative steps needed to be conducted in cryptographic techniques, and the management of such services.
*.....* *Click the link for more information.*  above the individual,
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda *Propaganda* is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments and political parties. 

A similar manipulation of information is well known, e.g., in advertising, but normally it is not called propaganda in the latter context. The word propaganda carries a strong negative connotation that advertising does not.
*.....* *Click the link for more information.*  and censorship _In ancient Rome, _censorship_ was the office or function of a censor. This article is about controls over publication and discussion._
*Censorship* is the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression. Censorship 'criminalizes' certain actions or the communication of such actions - or suggested communications of such actions. In a modern sense
*.....* *Click the link for more information.*  to forcibly suppress political opposition,
engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
espouses nationalism *Nationalism* is a concept of identity which members of a particular government, nation, society, or territory may collectively feel. *Nationalists* strive to create or sustain a nation based on various notions of political legitimacy. These notions of political legitimacy can derive from the Romantic theory of "cultural identity", the liberal argument that political legitimacy is derived from the consent of a region's population, or combinations of the two.
*.....* *Click the link for more information.*  and sometimes racism 

_racial discrimination_. 

*Racism* refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. When combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against in this way, racial persecution has been the source of extreme hardship for particular minorities, considered as aliens within particular societies.
*.....* *Click the link for more information.*  (ethnic nationalism *Ethnic nationalism* is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from historical cultural or hereditary groupings (ethnicities); the underlying assumption is that ethnicities should be politically distinct. This was developed by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who introduced the concept of the _Volk_ (German for _Folk_). Romantic nationalism is a form of ethnic nationalism infused with Romanticism.
*.....* *Click the link for more information.* ). 

Facism and Dictatorships may share some elements in that the populace are either powerless or not fairly represented.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No I am not.  Facism does not include voted officials that represent the populace or it's interests.


 Actually, it can, and often does... in fact, none of the information you quote below (unattributed, I feel I must point out) states otherwise.A fascist state does not have to be a dictatorship; officials can even be elected.  

 Many states, including our own beloved country, occasionally teeter towards fascism in our extremist forms of nationalism, racism, uses of propaganda and censorship, and corporatist focus.  

 I would argue that the US is on a fascist swing at the moment, actually, by many of the criteria that you posted.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, it can, and often does... in fact, none of the information you quote below (unattributed, I feel I must point out) states otherwise.A fascist state does not have to be a dictatorship; officials can even be elected.
> 
> I would argue that the US is on a fascist swing at the moment, actually, by many of the criteria that you posted.


Never said that they were one in the same, only that they could share some characteristics. Facism is akin to Nazism and I would be willing to say that there isn't a sense of 'fair and equal representation' of the populace in that structure either - only a bully environment with unbalanced representation, centralized power and little to no provisions for amendments and popular influence over government where voting against the 'party' is a death sentence - either literally or in terms of business/healthcare and status within the country.

In both Facism and Nazism there is a race clause about full citizenship (therefore full voting and participation power) that, as Americans we don't have. If you are a naturalized or native citizen your race, creed, color should have no bearing on your ability to move up and down the commercial ladder of success - of course we can argue how 'real' that is but that is a different issue.  The only limit I know if is the POTUS.

Instead of splitting hairs over whether the source is attributed (even though there is nothing 'wrong' in the definition), it might be better served to make reasonable comparisons to Nazi Germany/Facist Italy. I think, in general you won't find a strong direct comparison - of course you can argue similarities but then I could argue similarities between religious bodies and government bodies and that doesn't mean that they are 'exactly the same' either.

Besides, this is about the dignity of death and euthenization (sp?) or 'assisted suicide' not a comparison/contrast of facism and dictatorships.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 10, 2004)

I apologize for the thread gank; I simply wanted to point out that the term "fascism" has been tossed around by a couple of different posters *very* loosely.  *Dictatorship* would have been more appropriate in the first place.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 10, 2004)

I live in Michigan and what nailed Kevorkian wasn't "assisting" people so much as he killed the person.  In all of the cases before he hooked up the tubes and gave instructions on how to do it, in the case where he went to prison, he not only hooked up the tubes he also activated it and pushed the buttons.

There were also alot of cases of people coming to Michigan and killing their spouse who was terminal because they thought it was legal to do so in Michigan.

The "Right to Die" as it was called on Michigan's ballot, caused quite a stir and it was voted down by a good majority of the population.  I remember at the time reading a study that was conducted in Sweden and interviewed alot of doctors and over half of the doctors had admitted to "assisting" their patients when the patient hadn't requested it and the doctor just thought that it would be better if they were dead.

I think it's scenarios like this that cause people to question legalizing it even if they personally might be in favor of it.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 10, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I apologize for the thread gank; I simply wanted to point out that the term "fascism" has been tossed around by a couple of different posters *very* loosely. *Dictatorship* would have been more appropriate in the first place.


I think Facism was fine within the context of her intent, but possibly an exageration when applying it to US or the states structure overall.  I don't think it was inappropriate.  Facists have been known to squash a few civil liberties in history too.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2004)

I generally don't use the term fascism in reference to current government, however, when elected officials manage to re-elect themselves and overturn voted-in legislation and deny the protection of rights to individuals, one is reminded of fascism.


----------



## davidg553 (Nov 10, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> To have the government squash the wishes of the people is an earmark of fascism, is it not?


Amen to that! Too bad more people were not saying this when the Massachusetts legislature squashed the wishes of the people by refusing to consider the original gay marriage ammendment during the state constitutional convention ('02) when originally brought up.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 10, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> ...one is reminded of fascism.



One should be properly reminded of dictatorship, since this sort of behavior goes beyond fascism to include many other political styles.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2004)

PeachMonkey - I read you - twice; though my leanings were more towards the intent and blatant disregard accompanied with nose-thumbing and decided upon the harsher term to emulate the resulting angst.

 Cheers.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 10, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> PeachMonkey - I read you - twice; though my leanings were more towards the intent and blatant disregard accompanied with nose-thumbing and decided upon the harsher term to emulate the resulting angst.



Yeah, well, never let it be said that I'll pass up a chance to be pedantic


----------



## someguy (Nov 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That is how you could categorize the issues.  My point was about a person who says that a person should have the 'right to choose' about abortion but doesn't think that a person 'has the right to choose' in terms of 'assisted suicide.'  YOu are correct in using the choice idea as an organizing idea, but how would a person who is on one side about abortion but the other for 'euthenization' explain that contrast is my question.


People can rationalize anything. Heck people can rationalize hanging people based not on their actoins but on well race, religion, sexuality, wel you get the point.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 11, 2004)

I think a more intriguing rationalization are those that purport to be "pro-life", but then support unnecessary wars and capital punishment.

*shrugs* I guess they're only "pro-life" when the being in question isn't actually _conscious_.


----------



## GAB (Nov 11, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> On thinking of this further, I believe that what Ashcroft is doing is most ethical and right.
> WHY?
> Because it is the job of the Attourney General to uphold and enforce the existing laws... not to change or control the laws.
> If assisted suicide is illegal in Oregon, then Ashcroft is simply doing his job.
> ...


Hi John, 

As of this typing Ashcroft has resigned. Now that is what is right, I believe he is doing a good thing.
Now lets see who goes to the podium and replaces him. I believe it will be a moderate, or at least I hope so (for the countries sake).

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 11, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Now lets see who goes to the podium and replaces him. I believe it will be a moderate, or at least I hope so (for the countries sake).



Gary,

Sadly, Bush's nominee is the same attorney who decided that the Geneva Convention is "outdated" and "unnecessary".


----------



## GAB (Nov 11, 2004)

Hi Peach,

Yikes, Autocrat comes to mind...

Since we do have a better form of government. 
Then my thought, maybe we will see some good old filibustering.:whip: 

Regards, Gary


----------



## SenseiBear (Nov 12, 2004)

The Justice Department is not just doing its job, it is trying to change the law.  Death with Dignity is LEGAL in Oregon - As I recall it going down, the people voted it in, the Legislature put in a referendum to overturn it, and the people voted it in again.  It is currently legal and in use.

Also, it is *NOT "euthenization"*, the Oregon Death with Dignity law allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of pain medication to patients with less than six months to live.  It allows dying people to end their lives peacefully and painlessly at the time of their choosing.


----------



## SenseiBear (Nov 12, 2004)

Yes, here you go:  (from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38300,00.html)




> The law was a citizen's initiative first passed by Oregon voters in November 1994 with 51 percent in favor.
> 
> In November 1997, a measure asking voters to repeal the Death with Dignity Act was placed on the general election ballot. Voters rejected the measure by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent, retaining the assisted-suicide law.
> 
> ...


----------



## TonyM. (Nov 13, 2004)

Anyone ever hear of the hypocratic oath?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 13, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Anyone ever hear of the hypocratic oath?



The Hippocratic Oath is commonly misinterpreted.  The classical version is hardly applicable, and neither version strictly limits a doctor's ability to assist with death with dignity.  Even if you limit it to the commonly believed "do no harm", if the patient is suffering and chooses to die, how is helping them to make their choice harm?

For the actual Hippocratic Oath, I refer you to:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 13, 2004)

Has anybody read this whole thread?  It's only three pages, folks.  I've already provided the text of the oath on the first page.


----------

