No More Death with Dignity...

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. Research and Development in Advanced Communications Technologies in Europe. 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
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
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
 
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".
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

At least 70 terminally ill people have ended their lives since it took effect in 1997, according to the Oregon Health Division. All have done so with a federally controlled substance such as a barbiturate.

Under the law, doctors may provide — but not administer — a lethal prescription to terminally ill adult state residents. It requires that two doctors agree the patient has less than six months to live, has voluntarily chosen to die and is able to make health care decisions.
 
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
 
Back
Top