• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should American adopt the right to Doctor Assisted Suicide?

Should Doctor assisted suicide be legal?

  • yes

    Votes: 42 70.0%
  • Depends on the regulation put in place and circumstances

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • no

    Votes: 7 11.7%

  • Total voters
    60
I won't speak for other countries and peoples and the laws they wish to enact, but I'm glad that our Supreme Court has finally come around to what the vast majority of Canadian people wanted. I wish it would go further and in time it might - perhaps not in time for me, but there's always hope. I'm all for the Soylent Green option, without the final product, of course.

It's not a path I would take, nor support, but no government has the right to be in the bedrooms of the dying.

I cannot support is a Christian, but as a liberal with libertarian roots, that's simply too much Big Brother. I am rather fond of this court, although Bev McLachlin can say some scary things
 
Absolutely. If you want to die, kill yourself.

What you want though is different, and not one word of the rhetoric you just used has any relevance in promoting it.

No it's not different. You are against the right of a medical professional choosing to end the suffering of an individual at that individuals request.

A Medical professional has every right to compassionately choose to assist. And the medical professional is NOT a barbarian or an aggressive murderer for doing so.

That is where the contention between you and I lays.
 
I really resent that. I am a person of faith, but I'm not a nut. I don't think that the government should be in the live-or-die business anyway, but this doesn't make me a nut.

Some atheists can't find it in them to not insult people of faith. I'm an atheist too, but in my mind people have the right to believe in whatever god they want and by doing so they are not a nut. It's just part of human nature to believe in such things, and if Jet knew his history he would know this.
 
If a palliative health care professional is actively administering pain medication for an individual that they actively know as they are administering the pain medication is committing suicide, and the only reason they are administering this medication is to alleviate the pain associated with the suicide. Then YES they are assisting that individual with their suicide.

I can't believe I have to spell that out.

Again, staggering ignorance of the work those folks do.

Do you know how end stage dementia patients die? Dehydration, usually.

I guess their dnr and no iv fluid requests were their suicide notes as far as your concerned.
 
It's not a path I would take, nor support, but no government has the right to be in the bedrooms of the dying.

I cannot support is a Christian, but as a liberal with libertarian roots, that's simply too much Big Brother. I am rather fond of this court, although Bev McLachlin can say some scary things

I've generally disagreed with a lot of this nanny state court, but they got this one right on balance.
 
No it's not different. You are against the right of a medical professional choosing to end the suffering of an individual at that individuals request.

A Medical professional has every right to compassionately choose to assist. And the medical professional is NOT a barbarian or an aggressive murderer for doing so.

That is where the contention between you and I lays.

Yes, that is a point of contention.

For example, Jack Kevorkian was a ****ing murderer, no different than any other contract killer, and it is a travesty he didn't die in prison.

You cannot abdicate an unalienable human right.
 
Again, staggering ignorance of the work those folks do.

Do you know how end stage dementia patients die? Dehydration, usually.


I guess their dnr and no iv fluid requests were their suicide notes as far as your concerned.

How is this distinction lost on you.

f the said individual is not on their way out the door currently. They are are sober of mind and they are presently choosing to commit suicide. This is then translated to the medical professionals who then decide to make that suicide painless, they have, indeed, decided to assist in that individuals suicide.
 
Yes, that is a point of contention.

For example, Jack Kevorkian was a ****ing murderer, no different than any other contract killer, and it is a travesty he didn't die in prison.

You cannot abdicate an unalienable human right.

A murder is taking the life from someone who did not want to die. You are creating a strawman.

Assisted suicide is not murder. The individual dying simply asked for a medical professional to administer them the cocktail needed to peacefully end their lives. The individual then takes the concoction on their own. It's their choice. Their UNALIENABLE RIGHT to their own life.
 
That doesn't say what you think it does. Again, someone deciding on their own free will to not eat is not someone else harming them.

That didnt say what you thought it did. I never claimed he said anything about harming anyone.

I said that he wished suffering on them. Which is clear when you say to just let someone starve to death, die of dehydration, etc.

To give them pain meds would be assisting that end.
 
It's against my personal moral compass but yes, people should have the choice if they want it. There are some very nasty and painful ways to die and when there is no hope and when there is no pressure or money involved, it should be a legal option in the US.
 
Pain medication is not assisting in a suicide.

This is such ignorance of the work that palliative healthcare professionals do that it buggers belief.

Of course it is, it is the definition of 'assisting' as you were already shown.

It is enabling the act.

We all know how you like to create your own definitions and ignore 'actual' definitions that are published and recognized by mainstream AND medical professionals.

You are just highlighting this again in this thread. No one is fooled, no matter how you define your bizarre interpretations of real life.
 
My mother died from pancreatic cancer. In her final days she asked my brother to kill her. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have done it. We went to bed one night and a hospice nurse sat with her. At some time during the night she threw up in her mouth and was unable to turn her head and clear her through. She gargled on it for god knows how long until I woke up, with the nurse sitting there watching her. We cleared her mouth and she died shortly after. You're damned right that when there was no hope of quality of life and the only thing she had to look forward to was suffering, I'd have gladly ended her misery.
 
Of course it is, it is the definition of 'assisting' as you were already shown.

It is enabling the act.

We all know how you like to create your own definitions and ignore 'actual' definitions that are published and recognized by mainstream AND medical professionals.

You are just highlighting this again in this thread. No one is fooled, no matter how you define your bizarre interpretations of real life.


His definition is if they are not actively helping them tie the noose around their neck then it's not assistance.

But yes even if they only provide them with the stool for just that purpose, they have still assisted in the suicide.
 
Adult people have the right to die if they choose to die. Not my call when, why or how they do it, so if they want to die via assisted suicide, they should have that option.
 
His definition is if they are not actively helping them tie the noose around their then it's not assistance.

But yes even if they only provide them with the stool for just that purpose, they have still assisted in the suicide.

His definitions are rarely founded in reality. And that has been proven, not ad hom.
 
you cannot give your "right to life" to another person, unalienable rights are not transferable.

Exactly right. You can only kill someone else in self defense. A doctor has no justifiable reason to kill their patient. They are not in danger and all they are doing is harming someone else. That's not only against their oath, but against basic human rights.
 
A murder is taking the life from someone who did not want to die. You are creating a strawman.

Assisted suicide is not murder. The individual dying simply asked for a medical professional to administer them the cocktail needed to peacefully end their lives. The individual then takes the concoction on their own. It's their choice. Their UNALIENABLE RIGHT to their own life.

No murder is a specific criminal charge levied against the alleged perpetrator(s) of a homicide.

Kevorkian was convicted of murder. He was a murderer. That conviction was entirely appropriate. Any doctor who does what he did is violating human rights as well as medical ethics; they should be thrown into prison forever.
 
If someone chooses to assist them under professional knowledge that is also their right.

And I disagree with that. I do not have the right to kill you or anyone else just because you want me to end your life. I can not strip from your life on such terms even if you want me to.
 
My mother died from pancreatic cancer. In her final days she asked my brother to kill her. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have done it. We went to bed one night and a hospice nurse sat with her. At some time during the night she threw up in her mouth and was unable to turn her head and clear her through. She gargled on it for god knows how long until I woke up, with the nurse sitting there watching her. We cleared her mouth and she died shortly after. You're damned right that when there was no hope of quality of life and the only thing she had to look forward to was suffering, I'd have gladly ended her misery.

I just posted a similar experience recently. My mother died from bone cancer. A once vibrant, active athletic woman was in such excruciating pain at the end we couldn't even touch her. She stopped fighting the pain after a while. The first decent sleep I got in 3 months happened the night she died. If she had asked me to find her a doctor to help her out of her misery, I would have done it in a second.
 
No it's not different. You are against the right of a medical professional choosing to end the suffering of an individual at that individuals request.

A Medical professional has every right to compassionately choose to assist. And the medical professional is NOT a barbarian or an aggressive murderer for doing so.

That is where the contention between you and I lays.

Wrong. A medical professional has the duty to not harm their patient. It is a breach of medical ethics dating back to the time of Hippocrates for medical professionals to involve themselves in such things.
 
Projection, as usual.

It's not projecting when the posts demonstrating my claim are shown both in this thread and others.
 
It's not projecting when the posts demonstrating my claim are shown both in this thread and others.

Seeing words that are not there. As usual.

I'm sorry but you equated palliation to assisted suicide in this thread; that's too offensive and too crazy for anything you say right now to be taken seriously. In your rush to score points against me in some fight you're dragging from thread to thread, you have leapt yourself onto a completely untenable and insane position.
 
Wrong. A medical professional has the duty to not harm their patient. It is a breach of medical ethics dating back to the time of Hippocrates for medical professionals to involve themselves in such things.

Doctors are trained for years to keep people alive and promote health. They are uniquely overqualified to be killing people. Why not train non-medical people in how to "mercifully" kill people? Is that morally objectionable if all persons involved are willing to do it?

*I know the above may sound odd, but it is a serious question.
 
Back
Top Bottom