• 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
FYI, JayDubya's an atheist. :3oops:

nailed-it_o_1391147.jpg
 
I don't share personal details with you people.

I do know a lot about this topic but how is my business.

If you have, then you know someone who faces death - it is a unique experience for each person.

Suffering is unique and individual as well. It is not just physical pain - it is emotional as well. It can be unwavering nausea. It can be unrelenting dwelling on what might have been. It can be a feeling of heat or cold that nothing seems to help.

It can be so different. Neither one of us should judge what they are and are not willing to put up with.

Letting a person who is awake and alert dehydrate to death as their recourse to unrelenting suffering? My gracious - either you are too young and naïve to realize what you are saying or you lack even a trace of compassion.

There are a lot of reasons to be against physician assisted suicide - but your suggestion is :shock:
 
A patient should be able to choose death in the event that they have a condition with no prospects for treatment and that results in excruciating pain and suffering. The process would have to be highly regulated, with well defined standards for informing the patient about the process and evaluating the patient's ability to consent to doctor assisted suicide.
 
Dehydration has symptoms that can be palliated.

And that relief from pain from another person is enabling, assisting.

It's also called mercy, compassion.
 
If you have, then you know someone who faces death - it is a unique experience for each person.

Okay.

Suffering is unique and individual as well. It is not just physical pain - it is emotional as well. It can be unwavering nausea. It can be unrelenting dwelling on what might have been. It can be a feeling of heat or cold that nothing seems to help.

It can be so different. Neither one of us should judge what they are and are not willing to put up with.

I didn't judge any such thing.

I explained an ethical way to accomplish the goal that does not involve anyone killing anyone else.

Letting a person who is awake and alert dehydrate to death as their recourse to unrelenting suffering?

If they have decided they want to die, that is an option available to them.

My gracious - either you are too young and naïve to realize what you are saying

Or perhaps you are too ignorant of the facts if you think that the symptoms of dehydration cannot be palliated or think that this is some alien concept and no one has ever done this before.
 
And that relief from pain from another person is enabling, assisting.

Sure. Palliation of symptoms is the same thing as deliberately killing folks. Uh-huh.

I remember you said this earlier. I remember I pointed out that it was :screwy
 
I would implore you not to take offense. The hospice workers I've interacted with have been wonderful people (I volunteer with a hospice).

I have a friend that is a hospice nurse. There are doctors in the country that will hasten the death of the terminally ill.
 
Or perhaps you are too ignorant of the facts if you think that the symptoms of dehydration cannot be palliated or think that this is some alien concept and no one has ever done this before.

With water?:roll:

With so many drugs they cannot wake up enough to realize they are dying of thirst?

In a hospice situation, water is not intentionally withheld - especially if they are asking for it!!!!!Ask yourself why.
 
With water?:roll:

With so many drugs they cannot wake up enough to realize they are dying of thirst?

Uhh that's the whole point, if they want to die. I'm not saying sedate them to the point of unconsciousness. Lack of water will cause unconsciousness just fine on its own.

In a hospice situation, water is not intentionally withheld - especially if they are asking for it!!!!!Ask yourself why.

Because the risk of aspiration in a patient with dysphagia (and a terminal diagnosis) is viewed as secondary importance compared to the desires / comfort of the patient.

In this case, it's a deliberate thing; if the patient wants to die, then they're not going to ask for water.
 
Sure. Palliation of symptoms is the same thing as deliberately killing folks. Uh-huh.

I remember you said this earlier. I remember I pointed out that it was :screwy

You know what's :screwy?

Thinking that providing something that enables someone to commit suicide isnt assisting them.

After all, they cant prescribe the drugs for themselves, can they? Are you suggesting they just take a bunch of aspirin? :screwy

And by the time someone is terminal, or in incapacitating pain, or weak from dehydration, how do they run to the drug store and get them for themselves? Or even the next room? :doh

Yup, that's assisting.
 
You know what's :screwy?

Yes, I do. I identified the source of it quite well actually.

Thinking that providing something that enables someone to commit suicide isnt assisting them.

How does one provide an absence of water, Lursa? You know what, I'm afraid you'll actually respond to this completely rhetorical and highly derisive question...


I mean, I get it. I get what you're doing. You're being obnoxious with semantics. It's how you do.

PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE refers to deliberately killing a patient, with the physician administering a lethal dose of medication.

You're all like, "Herp a derp, but by giving someone pain medication, aren't you 'assisting' them while they commit suicide?
201206081649CXT.gif
"

The correct response to this line of "logic" which completely ignores the concept of what we're talking about in this thread, where a physician is deliberately killing his patient, is as follows:

6224_7f2c.gif


The problem is, yes, you are comparing all palliative care to deliberately killing your patient, and that remains ****ing insane and would be noxiously offensive to anyone involved in palliative care that has the misfortune to read such slanderous rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do. I identified the source of it quite well actually.



How does one provide an absence of water, Lursa? You know what, I'm afraid you'll actually respond to this completely rhetorical and highly derisive question...


I mean, I get it. I get what you're doing. You're being obnoxious with semantics. It's how you do.

PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE refers to deliberately killing a patient, with the physician administering a lethal dose of medication.

You're all like, "Herp a derp, but by giving someone pain medication, aren't you 'assisting' them while they commit suicide?

The correct response to this line of "logic" which completely ignores the concept of what we're talking about in this thread, where a physician is deliberately killing his patient, is as follows:


The problem is, yes, you are comparing all palliative care to deliberately killing your patient, and that remains ****ing insane and would be noxiously offensive to anyone involved in palliative care that has the misfortune to read such slanderous rubbish.

No, Kevorkian didnt go to jail for that. He just provided the means and the person did it themselves.

And yes, providing pain meds is of course assisting, as I pointed out because it enables them.

You can use the JD Dictionary of Drama all you like but it doesnt change the facts.

(sorry that your juvenile diversionary tactics dont work on an adult with a normal attention span. Do your "arguments" actually work on children because they dont work on this forum? Ever, that I've seen.)
 
No, Kevorkian didnt go to jail for that. He just provided the means and the person did it themselves.

Kevorkian's murder conviction was for administering a lethal dose of medication himself. He filmed this action; it aired on 60 Minutes. I'm not surprised you don't know the facts of this case, because well, precedent.

He should never have been given parole, and it should not have been a second degree murder conviction given the element of premeditation. Nevertheless, he not only perpetrated homicide, he was a convicted murderer.


The rest of your post is summarily ignored.
 
Last edited:
You know what? Let's say, for the sake of argument only, that you've convinced me. Sure thing, providing palliation for dehydration is still "physician assisted suicide," no different than administering a lethal dose of medication yourself.

Okay. The point still stands, you have now convinced me that all palliative care is wrong and should never be provided. You can still kill yourself just fine by refusing fluids. I guess the threshold for your resolve will have to be higher, but no one need kill you by bringing you any medication that helps alleviate any symptom whatsoever.
 
So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.

Do you have any idea how painful that would be?
 
Do you have any idea how painful that would be?

Yeah. Not very much. With proper palliation, less than not very much.
 
This is one of those issues where I'm left stunned that anybody actually opposes this. I can understand heavy regulation, but an outright ban? Really?

People have the right to end their own life. Period. It's to the point that with drug prohibition, prostitution bans, forced pregnancies through abortion bans, and these suicide bans, we are basically asserting that the state has total control over our bodies. And it's ironically "limited government" advocates giving them said control.
 
People have the right to end their own life. Period.

Agreed. Totally not what the thread is about, but agreed wholeheartedly.

See I'm a libertarian, you may have heard of us, and we follow this thing called the non-aggression principle.
 
Yeah. Not very much. With proper palliation, less than not very much.

So if the doctor is going to assist you in your suicide, then how would that be different from a lethal injection? Other than the latter being easier, quicker, and more humane?
 
So if the doctor is going to assist you in your suicide

Meaning what? Sadly, you need to clarify whether you are being ridiculous or rational here. By context, it seems the former, sadly.

Voluntary terminal dehydration may cause you various distressing symptoms. The lack of water is your choice driven entirely by your refusal, which puts you in the driver's seat, and it doesn't require any active action on your part whatsoever. Forcing fluids on you is not permissible. Palliating your discomfort, should you request that service, is permissible.

Merely palliating discomfort does not fall under the umbrella of "physician assisted suicide."

then how would that be different from a lethal injection? Other than the latter being easier, quicker, and more humane?

Oh you mean with the one being suicide, like you killing yourself, and the other being murder, with one person aggressively violating your unalienable rights? That's not a big difference to you? Well, it is to some people.

I don't consider needlessly killing - wait, no in this case I can actually use the word - murdering other humans to be humane.

The thing is, I need not even go into specifics, I could have just said "anyone can kill themselves if they really want to" and left it at that, because it would be accurate.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Totally not what the thread is about, but agreed wholeheartedly.

......uh. It kinda is.

See I'm a libertarian, you may have heard of us

Nope, I only have it set as my lean. :roll:

, and we follow this thing called the non-aggression principle.

Libertarianism was around long before that two-dimensional load of crap.
 
......uh. It kinda is.

"People have the right to end their own life. Period."

Nope. This thread is about having someone else in your life. That makes a huge difference.

Nope, I only have it set as my lean. :roll:

Libertarianism was around long before that two-dimensional load of crap.

Calling the central tenet of libertarianism a "load of crap" tells me just about everything I need to know about you. Hell, it's essentially just the golden rule.
 
You know what? Let's say, for the sake of argument only, that you've convinced me. Sure thing, providing palliation for dehydration is still "physician assisted suicide," no different than administering a lethal dose of medication yourself.

Okay. The point still stands, you have now convinced me that all palliative care is wrong and should never be provided. You can still kill yourself just fine by refusing fluids. I guess the threshold for your resolve will have to be higher, but no one need kill you by bringing you any medication that helps alleviate any symptom whatsoever.

They are they same thing. So whether or not you are hypothetically conceding is irrelevant.

You keep spinning your hyperbolic version of what Doctor assisted suicide is. It's Barbaric. It's murder. It's unethical.

But it's not working because you're wrong. There is nothing ill mannered or seedy about assisting someone who wants to die peacefully.

That fact remains despite by your protest.
 
Kevorkian's murder conviction was for administering a lethal dose of medication himself. He filmed this action; it aired on 60 Minutes. I'm not surprised you don't know the facts of this case, because well, precedent.

He should never have been given parole, and it should not have been a second degree murder conviction given the element of premeditation. Nevertheless, he not only perpetrated homicide, he was a convicted murderer.


The rest of your post is summarily ignored.

You have established that you are appealing to the laws that where set in place that allowed Kevorkian to be charged with murder for assisting his patients in their choice to end their life.

Ultimately you insistence on repeating this does nothing to further your argument, because the point remains that the law is the word of man not the word of some sort of ingrained, infallible, absolute moral premise that is weaved into the universe that we must all abide by.

The simple fact that his actions in this day and age depending on where he would be practicing would not be consider illegal confirms that the arbitrary law you hold so fast too, is nothing but cultural determination by legislation. Capable of being changed at any time, as it now is being.
 
Last edited:
Merely palliating discomfort does not fall under the umbrella of "physician assisted suicide."
.


It absolutely does when the sole purpose of the palliation is to ASSIST in making that suicide less painful.
Your mental gymnastics with how the definitions of words work is quite the spectacle, but to fool yourself into thinking that you can navigate a discussion while imposing your own warped versions of definitions to circumvent their actual meaning is tad dishonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom