Right to Die - Appeal Rejected

Nodin

force eleven wrote: »

Sure, let's just put all old people down (insert age demographic here), and out of their misery. Leave it up to us, your trusted government, to decide when you are fit to leave this mortal coil.

I weep for society. Neo Liberalism is trying to run riot.

I think you're on the wrong thread.

Big C

Best and worst thing about boards, Best is people can express views on topics that may interest them, worst is donkeys can also join in.

robindch

70% of religious believers generally, and 56% of catholics overall, support assisted suicide in the UK. Only 16% of religious believers are against it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22362736

Sarky

It's an interesting Catholic that disagrees with the party line.

Does the pope know? He should send a team to sort that heresy out.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

poor old enda is probably sick of these issues. abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia; they seem to be piling up all of a sudden.

Funny that, 'this is a catholic country' just doesn't wash any more.

Oh, here is what happens if the gardai get wind of your plans to shuffle off this mortal coil in another jurisdiction. Don't they have anything better to be doing?

Turtwig

ninja900 wrote: »

Funny that, 'this is a catholic country' just doesn't wash any more.

Oh, here is what happens if the gardai get wind of your plans to shuffle off this mortal coil in another jurisdiction. Don't they have anything better to be doing?

The Gardai have a job to uphold the law so you can't blame them. It's the people who snitch on people who want assisted suicide that grinds my gears.

Newaglish

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

A change of heart by the recipient of an assisted suicide? It's actually surprisingly rare.

seamus

I hope Marie gets the dignified death that she wants, at a time of her choosing.

I'm generally not one for protesting, most of the major humans rights issues like apartheid, homosexuality, etc, were resolved before I turned 16.

But I think if her husband was to find himself arrested, I would be damn angry enough to join the thousands of other who would march on Leinster house demanding a change in this archaic law.

robindch

Last Saturday, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame wrote can only be described as a strongly-worded condemnation of anybody who is against euthanasia. His dad died a few hours after it was posted.

http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/i_hope_my_father_dies_soon/

Scott Adams wrote:

I hope my father dies soon.

And while I'm at it, I might want you to die a painful death too.

I'm entirely serious on both counts.

My father, age 86, is on the final approach to the long dirt nap (to use his own phrase). His mind is 98% gone, and all he has left is hours or possibly months of hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed. I'll spare you the details, but it's as close to a living Hell as you can get.

If my dad were a cat, we would have put him to sleep long ago. And not once would we have looked back and thought too soon.

Because it's not too soon. It's far too late. His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering. Rarely has money been so poorly spent.

I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.

I'm a patriotic guy by nature. I love my country. But the government? Well, we just broke up.

And let me say this next part as clearly as I can.

If you're a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won't do that, because I fear the consequences. But I'd enjoy it, because you motherfuckers are responsible for torturing my father. Now it's personal.

I know that many of my fellow citizens have legitimate concerns about doctor-assisted suicide. One can certainly imagine greedy heirs speeding up the demise of grandma to get the inheritance. That would be a strong argument if doctor-assisted suicide wasn't already working elsewhere with little problems, or if good things in general (such as hospitals and the police) never came with their own risks.

I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too. You and the government are accomplices in the torturing of my father, and there's a good chance you'll someday be accomplices in torturing me to death too.

I might feel differently in a few years, but at the moment my emotions are a bit raw. If I could push a magic button and send every politician who opposes doctor-assisted suicide into a painful death spiral that lasts for months, I'd press it. And I wouldn't feel a bit of guilt because sometimes you have to get rid of the bad guys to make the world a better place. We do it in defensive wars and the police do it daily. This would be another one of those situations.

I don't want anyone to misconstrue this post as satire or exaggeration. So I'll reiterate. If you have acted, or plan to act, in a way that keeps doctor-assisted suicide illegal, I see you as an accomplice in torturing my father, and perhaps me as well someday. I want you to die a painful death, and soon. And I'd be happy to tell you the same thing to your face.

Note to my government: I'll keep paying my taxes and doing whatever I need to do to stay out of jail, but don't ask me for anything else. We're done now.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

The Supreme Court has rejected Marie Fleming's appeal of the High Court's rejection of her request to be allowed to die when she wants to:

Marie Fleming has died:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/right-to-die-case-woman-marie-fleming-dies-aged-59-1.1634252

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Marie Fleming has died:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/right-to-die-case-woman-marie-fleming-dies-aged-59-1.1634252

Its very sad she wasn't allowed to die on her terms without the long drawn out suffering she know she'd experience,

I know which way I'd like to go if it was me,

Balaclava1991

Cabaal wrote: »

Its very sad she wasn't allowed to die on her terms without the long drawn out suffering she know she'd experience,

I know which way I'd like to go if it was me,

If the state allowed her to be killed by her husband even if she wanted it that opens a whole can of worms.
How could you regulate a right to die system so that it wouldn't be abused and people who did want to die would be badgered into agreeing to be killed or else someone could murder a relative and claim it was a mercy killing?
This could lead to a situation where doctors and nurses would be bumping people off to clear space in hospitals to save money.
We would be heading down a slippery slope and before you know the physically and mentally handicapped would be murdered.
In war and sometimes to fight crime it is necessary to take life.
When it becomes acceptable to kill people for other reasons we are on the road to a break down in civilization.
In Nazi Germany the T4 program began with a mercy killing and ended with tens of thousands murdered en masse.
The killing process perfected in the 1930s was later used to murder the Jews by the millions.
A right to die regime is pure barbarism.
To contemplate killing the ill is utterly repulsive, degenerate and evil incarnate.
Dressing it up as mercy is quite frankly vomit inducing.
We have taboos about killing for very good reasons because psychopathic wolves hide among the sheep ready to take advantage of even slight relaxation in accepted morality.
Fleming was not in her right mind because of her condition.
Nobody has the right to kill someone even if they think it will ease their suffering.
That is murder.

MagicMarker

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

If the state allowed her to be killed by her husband even if she wanted it that opens a whole can of worms.
How could you regulate a right to die system so that it wouldn't be abused and people who did want to die would be badgered into agreeing to be killed or else someone could murder a relative and claim it was a mercy killing?
This could lead to a situation where doctors and nurses would be bumping people off to clear space in hospitals to save money.
We would be heading down a slippery slope and before you know the physically and mentally handicapped would be murdered.
In war and sometimes to fight crime it is necessary to take life.
When it becomes acceptable to kill people for other reasons we are on the road to a break down in civilization.
In Nazi Germany the T4 program began with a mercy killing and ended with tens of thousands murdered en masse.
The killing process perfected in the 1930s was later used to murder the Jews by the millions.
A right to die regime is pure barbarism.
To contemplate killing the ill is utterly repulsive, degenerate and evil incarnate.
Dressing it up as mercy is quite frankly vomit inducing.
We have taboos about killing for very good reasons because psychopathic wolves hide among the sheep ready to take advantage of even slight relaxation in accepted morality.
Fleming was not in her right mind because of her condition.
Nobody has the right to kill someone even if they think it will ease their suffering.
That is murder.

Didn't you just this morning say how you would torture and cut someone's throat in another thread?

Excuse me while I ignore everything you say.

Delirium

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

If the state allowed her to be killed by her husband even if she wanted it that opens a whole can of worms.
How could you regulate a right to die system so that it wouldn't be abused and people who did want to die would be badgered into agreeing to be killed or else someone could murder a relative and claim it was a mercy killing?
This could lead to a situation where doctors and nurses would be bumping people off to clear space in hospitals to save money.
We would be heading down a slippery slope and before you know the physically and mentally handicapped would be murdered.
In war and sometimes to fight crime it is necessary to take life.
When it becomes acceptable to kill people for other reasons we are on the road to a break down in civilization.
In Nazi Germany the T4 program began with a mercy killing and ended with tens of thousands murdered en masse.
The killing process perfected in the 1930s was later used to murder the Jews by the millions.
A right to die regime is pure barbarism.
To contemplate killing the ill is utterly repulsive, degenerate and evil incarnate.
Dressing it up as mercy is quite frankly vomit inducing.
We have taboos about killing for very good reasons because psychopathic wolves hide among the sheep ready to take advantage of even slight relaxation in accepted morality.
Fleming was not in her right mind because of her condition.
Nobody has the right to kill someone even if they think it will ease their suffering.
That is murder.

Nonsense. There are people that have degenerative diseases that are extremely painful or their mind slowly vanishes. Why is it wrong for someone unable to commit suicide to seek a medical professional to it for them if they have no possibility of a good standard of life?

I would posit that forcing someone go through unnecessary suffering until their body gives out is sadistic. The patient should have the right to decide to no longer live with that pain.

Cabaal

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

If the state allowed her to be killed by her husband even if she wanted it that opens a whole can of worms.
How could you regulate a right to die system so that it wouldn't be abused and people who did want to die would be badgered into agreeing to be killed or else someone could murder a relative and claim it was a mercy killing?
This could lead to a situation where doctors and nurses would be bumping people off to clear space in hospitals to save money.
We would be heading down a slippery slope and before you know the physically and mentally handicapped would be murdered.
In war and sometimes to fight crime it is necessary to take life.
When it becomes acceptable to kill people for other reasons we are on the road to a break down in civilization.
In Nazi Germany the T4 program began with a mercy killing and ended with tens of thousands murdered en masse.
The killing process perfected in the 1930s was later used to murder the Jews by the millions.
A right to die regime is pure barbarism.
To contemplate killing the ill is utterly repulsive, degenerate and evil incarnate.
Dressing it up as mercy is quite frankly vomit inducing.
We have taboos about killing for very good reasons because psychopathic wolves hide among the sheep ready to take advantage of even slight relaxation in accepted morality.
Fleming was not in her right mind because of her condition.
Nobody has the right to kill someone even if they think it will ease their suffering.
That is murder.

^

To contemplate killing the ill is utterly repulsive,

But killing a pharmacist is perfectly ok if you do it?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88093091&postcount=110

Oh look, you got banned for that idiotic comment.

Pherekydes

^^^^^

Anyone else try to click on the "Surf Porn" button?

Turtwig

Pherekydes wrote: »

^^^^^

Anyone else try to click on the "Surf Porn" button?

Here's what pops up.

kylith

Thanks Jernal. Now I have to blind myself.

Turtwig

kylith wrote: »

Thanks Jernal. Now I have to blind myself.

I's sowi.

PopePalpatine

THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING!

Sarky

FFS Jernal.

<boots up PSP to replace Waters' head with Ronan Mullen's for revenge purposes>

Balaclava1991

koth wrote: »

Nonsense. There are people that have degenerative diseases that are extremely painful or their mind slowly vanishes. Why is it wrong for someone unable to commit suicide to seek a medical professional to it for them if they have no possibility of a good standard of life?

Because it's murder.

I would posit that forcing someone go through unnecessary suffering until their body gives out is sadistic.

Taking life needlessly is the greater evil.

The patient should have the right to decide to no longer live with that pain.

No they don't. Nobody should have the right to kill someone else unless it is war, self-defense or in defense of someone else and there is no other option open to them.

Allowing Fleming's death by her husband's hand would open the floodgates and all sorts of flimsy excuses would be used to allow wholesale killing of the vulnerable.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Because it's murder.


.

As the person has asked for it to be done, I don't see how.

Sarky

When making a slippery slope fallacy, it's usually a good idea to at least try and disguise it. Actively saying "slippery slope" is a dead giveaway.

Let's see, we also have 'opening the floodgates', Nazi Germany, and all killing is murder, except for the bits I approve of like war and self-defence. Bingo!

I really liked this little gem:

We have taboos about killing for very good reasons because psychopathic wolves hide among the sheep ready to take advantage of even slight relaxation in accepted morality.

The paranoia is strong in this one. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Anyway, it really is a shame that the state saw fit to keep her in agony until she wasn't their problem any more. This is what repeatedly bowing to religious lobby groups will get you.

P_1

RIP, it is a shame that she wasn't allowed to chose her time of death.

Personally I think it was an awful cop out by the courts in their decision, yes there is a risk of people being coerced into euthanasia but surely people who are coupus mentus should be allowed to chose the time and place of their death.

Of course seeing how the religious lunatic fringe are currently reacting to abortion rights, imagine how they'd flip at euthanasia rights?

Aenaes

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Fleming was not in her right mind because of her condition.

The following is Marie Fleming’s witness statement to the Irish High Court, seeking to establish her right to die with peace and dignity.

"I believe myself to have full mental capacity and have been assessed with a view to establishing my levels of competence for the purposes of these proceedings and for the purposes of taking the decisions to which these proceedings relate. I further say and believe and am advised that I have no underlying mental illness that does or is likely to affect my decision-making capacity. While the progress of my disease has affected my nervous system to the extent that I have lost control of my limbs and this loss of physical control will continue to worsen, I say and believe that it has not affected my cognitive functions. I have appended to this Witness Statement reports from Dr [name], Consultant Psychiatrist, and Dr [name], Clinical Neuropsychologist, which, marked with “MF4” and “MF5” respectively. I have identified these reports to [name], Practising Solicitor,as being the relevant reports, prior to him witnessing this Statement."

But I'm sure you know better than all those fancy doctors and Marie herself.

Balaclava1991

Aenaes wrote: »

The following is Marie Fleming’s witness statement to the Irish High Court, seeking to establish her right to die with peace and dignity.

"I believe myself to have full mental capacity and have been assessed with a view to establishing my levels of competence for the purposes of these proceedings and for the purposes of taking the decisions to which these proceedings relate. I further say and believe and am advised that I have no underlying mental illness that does or is likely to affect my decision-making capacity. While the progress of my disease has affected my nervous system to the extent that I have lost control of my limbs and this loss of physical control will continue to worsen, I say and believe that it has not affected my cognitive functions. I have appended to this Witness Statement reports from Dr [name], Consultant Psychiatrist, and Dr [name], Clinical Neuropsychologist, which, marked with “MF4” and “MF5” respectively. I have identified these reports to [name], Practising Solicitor,as being the relevant reports, prior to him witnessing this Statement."

But I'm sure you know better than all those fancy doctors and Marie herself.

Just because someone is in pain and agony and wants to die that does not justify murdering them.

Fleming was clearly not thinking straight.

Nobody who wants to die is by definition in their right mind.

Allowing people to be killed by others unless in war or to save the life of someone else who they are threatening to kill is not justified and morally wrong.

The duty of others when someone is in agony is to comfort them not kill them.

Balaclava1991

Sarky wrote: »

When making a slippery slope fallacy, it's usually a good idea to at least try and disguise it. Actively saying "slippery slope" is a dead giveaway.

Let's see, we also have 'opening the floodgates', Nazi Germany, and all killing is murder, except for the bits I approve of like war and self-defence. Bingo!

I really liked this little gem:


The paranoia is strong in this one. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Anyway, it really is a shame that the state saw fit to keep her in agony until she wasn't their problem any more. This is what repeatedly bowing to religious lobby groups will get you.

1930s Germany is a case study in how human compassion for the sick and the ill and those judged "life unworthy of life" was abused and used to kill vast numbers of innocent people.

Euthanasia is cold blooded murder dressed up as mercy.

When you kill you open the floodgates.

A society that kills the vulnerable is a society on the road to moral insanity and barbarism.

P_1

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Just because someone is in pain and agony and wants to die that does not justify murdering them.

Fleming was clearly not thinking straight.

Nobody who wants to die is by definition in their right mind.

Allowing people to be killed by others unless in war or to save the life of someone else who they are threatening to kill is not justified and morally wrong.

The duty of others when someone is in agony is to comfort them not kill them.

Bleedin ek :eek: I take it that the notion that the individual is sovereign over their own body and mind is totally alien to you so

tricky D

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Fleming was not in her right mind because of her condition.
Nobody has the right to kill someone even if they think it will ease their suffering.

Marie Fleming was compos mentis enough to argue cogently and impressively in the High Court, so your right mind point holds no water.

As for the second statement, medical ethics disagrees in the case of pulling the plug and palliative care. The practice of pulling the plug is coup de grace action, in the correct meaning of the phrase, and is a de facto act of allowing some one to die; killing by denying sustenance/non-intervention while managing pain.

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Nobody who wants to die is by definition in their right mind.

You're genuinely incapable of comprehending the idea that someone could be in so much unbearable pain all. the. time. that they'd rather die than suffer any longer?

Jesus.

Balaclava1991

P_1 wrote: »

RIP, it is a shame that she wasn't allowed to chose her time of death.

It is not shameful to uphold the sanctity of human life.

Personally I think it was an awful cop out by the courts in their decision, yes there is a risk of people being coerced into euthanasia but surely people who are coupus mentus should be allowed to chose the time and place of their death.

The risk is too great because it is wide open to abuse.

We have laws because we know the depths that human depravity can go when what was once beyond the pale is made permissible.

Of course seeing how the religious lunatic fringe are currently reacting to abortion rights, imagine how they'd flip at euthanasia rights?

I am not religious and I am repulsed by euthanasia and abortion.

Nobody is going to tell me that foetus is not a human being and that killing a foetus is not taking a human life. Unless the intention is the save the life of the mother there can be no justification whatsoever for abortion.

There are no circumstances in which it can be justified to kill a person even if that person is screaming to be killed.

It is only permissible to intentionally kill another human being if they are an enemy soldier in war or a person whose actions are threatening the life of someone else.

It is lunatic to kill in any other circumstances.

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

It is only permissible to intentionally kill another human being if they are an enemy soldier in war...

So it's OK to kill someone who doesn't want to die, but not OK to kill someone who does?

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're genuinely incapable of comprehending the idea that someone could be in so much unbearable pain all. the. time. that they'd rather die than suffer any longer?

Jesus.

It is not justified to kill someone because they are in pain.

It is morally wrong and evil.

It's murder.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

1930s Germany is a case study in how human compassion for the sick and the ill and those judged "life unworthy of life" was abused and used to kill vast numbers of innocent people.

Euthanasia is cold blooded murder dressed up as mercy.

When you kill you open the floodgates.

A society that kills the vulnerable is a society on the road to moral insanity and barbarism.

...jaysus...what thread have I heard that kind of bollocks in before......

MagicMarker

REDRUM!

P_1

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

It is not justified to kill someone because they are in pain.

It is morally wrong and evil.

It's murder.

Forcing somebody to endure the pain and humiliation that Marie Fleming had to endure is worse than murder in my eyes. Not only is it morally wrong but frankly it is sadistic.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

So it's OK to kill someone who doesn't want to die, but not OK to kill someone who does?

If you are fighting a war anyone in an enemy uniform whether they are carrying a weapon or not who has not surrendered while formal hostilities are still ongoing is fair game whether they are off duty and asleep in bed or firing at you.
In those circumstance it is perfectly justified to kill.

A person who is in pain is not threatening the life of anyone else and should not be killed.

Human beings provide care to ill, the sick and dying but we do not kill them directly.

Balaclava1991

P_1 wrote: »

Forcing somebody to endure the pain and humiliation that Marie Fleming had to endure is worse than murder in my eyes. Not only is it morally wrong but frankly it is sadistic.

Killing someone who is sick and dying is murder. What could be more sadistic than that? If the person wants to die makes no difference. It's murder. Clear and simple.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Killing someone who is sick and dying is murder. What could be more sadistic than that? If the person wants to die makes no difference. It's murder. Clear and simple.

Nope. What you're doing there is prolonging a persons suffering against their own wishes.

Balaclava1991

P_1 wrote: »

Bleedin ek :eek: I take it that the notion that the individual is sovereign over their own body and mind is totally alien to you so

This isn't about someone being sovereign over their own body.
This is about giving someone the right to kill someone else.
By all means kill yourself but if nobody can have they right to kill someone else unless they are a threat to the life of someone else.
You would be justified in killing another enemy soldier in a war or if someone broke into your house and threatened you with a gun and you were in fear of your life.
It is murder to kill someone who is ill even if they want to die.
Assisted suicide is murder.

P_1

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Killing someone who is sick and dying is murder. What could be more sadistic than that? If the person wants to die makes no difference. It's murder. Clear and simple.

It's clear that we have differing moral views on the topic but to me keeping somebody alive when they wish to die is torture and in my eye torture is worse than murder

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

This isn't about someone being sovereign over their own body.
.

Do please explain this.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

Nope. What you're doing there is prolonging a persons suffering against their own wishes.

What is stopping anyone from using that excuse to kill a sick relative they don't want to look after? They can make up any story they want and be believed.

To prevent the wholesale murder of vulnerable people you have to make killing of the ill on request wrong in all circumstances.

End of.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain this.

I already have. Read what I wrote.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

What is stopping anyone from using that excuse to kill a sick relative they don't want to look after? They can make up any story they want and be believed..

Because - amazing thought this - they'd ask the relative?

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I already have. Read what I wrote.

You may have though you answered, but I'm not seeing it.

Balaclava1991

P_1 wrote: »

It's clear that we have differing moral views on the topic but to me keeping somebody alive when they wish to die is torture and in my eye torture is worse than murder

There is only ONE moral view. There are NOT two. Something is either right or it is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is objective fact and NOT open to subjective opinion or debate.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

You may have though you answered, but I'm not seeing it.

And?

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

There is only ONE moral view. There are NOT two. Something is either right or it is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is objective fact and NOT open to subjective opinion or debate.

Yeah, yeah.

What gives you the right to make somebody suffer?