• 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!

Vermont Legalizes Assisted Suicide

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,169
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin has signed a bill into law that has legalized physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients who want to end their lives.

The governor’s signature has made Vermont the fourth US state to legalize assisted suicide, which Shumlin hailed as a victory for the few terminally ill Americans whose suffering surpasses their will to live.

Story at Russia Today: Vermont legalizes assisted suicide ? RT USA

This is good news-- a step closer to the humane treatment of those with terminal conditions.
 
Finally, some sane laws!
 
Once again a blue state proves they are the pro-death agenda.
 
Once again a blue state proves they are the pro-death agenda.

So you would rather someone suffer excruciating pain than to let someone put them out of thier misery?

Funny that in this respect we treat animals better than we do our own kind.
 
Once again a blue state proves they are the pro-death agenda.

Thanks for bringing partisan stupidity to the table right off the bat. I think I speak for everyone when I say we need more of that around here. :roll:
 
Some would rather see the hospitals and insurance companies rape the Veteran's Administration for untold tens of thousands per patient. We had to fight to remove Dad's tubes according to his will for several days at the Catholic hospital the VA sent him to.
 
His comment could as easily be taken as a compliment rather than as a criticism.

This is the epitome of freedom of choice. When I get "the phone call", I hope my state will offer me the same loving kindness to allow me to skip the suffering.


Thanks for bringing partisan stupidity to the table right off the bat. I think I speak for everyone when I say we need more of that around here. :roll:
 
So you would rather someone suffer excruciating pain than to let someone put them out of thier misery?

Funny that in this respect we treat animals better than we do our own kind.

I would not rather they die that way, but pain can usually be managed short of killing someone. Either way, the same argument could be made for the poor--why not euthanize them to put them out of their misery?

Thanks for bringing partisan stupidity to the table right off the bat. I think I speak for everyone when I say we need more of that around here. :roll:

Not stupidity at all, unless you are talking about the pro-euthanasia movement.

Would the death penalty not also qualify for that honor?

As would abortion, but with abortion the child has no choice and with euthanasia if someone really wanted to die they could do it without the doctor. Terminal patients I have known would sign just about anything you put in front of them and not even remember it 10 minutes later, so I do not consider them legally competent in the end and I do not trust that some doctors/family members won't lure them into signing.
 
His comment could as easily be taken as a compliment rather than as a criticism.

This is the epitome of freedom of choice. When I get "the phone call", I hope my state will offer me the same loving kindness to allow me to skip the suffering.

Sure, but you know damn well what he meant. Accepting the notion of assisted suicide is wildly different from actually being "pro-death."
 
Not stupidity at all, unless you are talking about the pro-euthanasia movement.

I was obviously talking about your comment, which I addressed in a fairly direct manner. Do try to keep up. Also, if you'd stop conflating humane treatment of terminally ill patients with being "pro-death" that'd probably be a good thing as well.
 
I would not rather they die that way, but pain can usually be managed short of killing someone. Either way, the same argument could be made for the poor--why not euthanize them to put them out of their misery?






Not stupidity at all, unless you are talking about the pro-euthanasia movement.






As would abortion, but with abortion the child has no choice and with euthanasia if someone really wanted to die they could do it without the doctor. Terminal patients I have known would sign just about anything you put in front of them and not even remember it 10 minutes later, so I do not consider them legally competent in the end and I do not trust that some doctors/family members won't lure them into signing.

Thats what scares me. A legal way for money hungrey people to manipulate their way into people suiciding through the system. If someone is in so much pain they want to die I dont think the law really means much... Making suicide illegal is one of the dumbest things in the world but making it legal also sounds pretty stupid to me. Its just one of those things that people do outside of the law. And its such a heavy decision that I think it should stay that way.

There is a huge difference in letting someone bleed out because they will die in 30 seconds and putting a pillow over grandmas head because shes tired of you having to clean up her poop.
 
I was obviously talking about your comment, which I addressed in a fairly direct manner. Do try to keep up. Also, if you'd stop conflating humane treatment of terminally ill patients with being "pro-death" that'd probably be a good thing as well.

It is pro-death--how much more direct can one be than that. There is nothing that prevents a terminal patient from killing themselves now. In fact, they usually have enough meds to kill an elephant if they so desire. What the law does is now allows relatives and doctors to coerce the person into signing a piece of paper, legalizing their extermination. Whatever happened to that "Do no harm" thing in the medical code of ethics?
 
It is pro-death--how much more direct can one be than that.

Not really, no. Whether this law exists or not, the patient involved is going to die. That's the whole issue. The question is how much control you think they should have over their own deaths. My answer is "as much as possible" and your answer is "only if they can pull it off themselves"; which leads us to...

There is nothing that prevents a terminal patient from killing themselves now.

Except, very possibly, the nature of their illness and the degree to which they have physical control over their own bodies; which is exactly why people support such laws to begin with.

What the law does is now allows relatives and doctors to cooerce the person into signing a piece of paper, legalizing their extermination. Whatever happened to that "Do no harm" thing in the medical code of ethics?

Who said anything about coercion? And how is keeping someone on life support for weeks or months in constant helpless pain doing no harm?
 
Last edited:
Actually, I didn't know that until a subsequent post. I've generally found Mr. F. to be pretty logical. I mistook this for edgy humor since I always viewed his a "Libertarinish" and thus amenable to personal choice.

I'm pro-death and proud of it. Death is final and should be applied very, very thoughtfully in situations where it is an option.


Sure, but you know damn well what he meant. Accepting the notion of assisted suicide is wildly different from actually being "pro-death."
 
Actually, I didn't know that until a subsequent post. I've generally found Mr. F. to be pretty logical. I mistook this for edgy humor since I always viewed his a "Libertarinish" and thus amenable to personal choice.

I'm pro-death and proud of it. Death is final and should be applied very, very thoughtfully in situations where it is an option.

Fair enough. My experience with "Mr. F" has been more of a mixed bag.
 
What I like about this legislation os that you can get the right tools for the job and because it is a process, you will leave less grief behind.

Think about those who desperately want to die but don't know how and don't want their insurance invalidated leaving their families to suffer. This is the right way for those people and I consider this to be true progress.


Fair enough. My experience with "Mr. F" has been more of a mixed bag.
 
Not really, no. Whether this law exists or not, the patient involved is going to die. That's the whole issue. The question is how much control you think they should have over their own deaths. My answer is "as much as possible" and your answer is "only if they can pull it off themselves"; which leads us to...



Except, very possibly, the nature of their illness and the degree to which they have physical control over their own bodies; which is exactly why people support such laws to begin with.



Who said anything about coercion? And how is keeping someone on life support for weeks or months in constant helpless pain doing no harm?


strawman at its finest. You can execute a DNR or Medical Directive today and never be put on life support "for weeks or months". They even make med alert bracelets for that. As a matter of public policy, euthanasia laws throw us so far down that slippery slope there will be no coming back. I only support death penalty in cases where I believe that the defendant is a clear danger to other inmates, guards, and/or the community if they escape; I only support abortion after the baby has a heartbeat when either the baby dies in the womb or the mother's life would be saved; and oppose euthanasia because it serves no purpose. If you think daughters are not going to talk dad into signing the form so they can schedule his death when its convenient for her or that doctors won't get patients to sign off because that is what renegade doctors think is best then you are kidding yourself. Kevorkian "assisted" people who were not even terminally ill or suffering any sort of pain whatsoever.
 
strawman at its finest. You can execute a DNR or Medical Directive today and never be put on life support "for weeks or months". They even make med alert bracelets for that. As a matter of public policy, euthanasia laws throw us so far down that slippery slope there will be no coming back. I only support death penalty in cases where I believe that the defendant is a clear danger to other inmates, guards, and/or the community if they escape; I only support abortion after the baby has a heartbeat when either the baby dies in the womb or the mother's life would be saved; and oppose euthanasia because it serves no purpose. If you think daughters are not going to talk dad into signing the form so they can schedule his death when its convenient for her or that doctors won't get patients to sign off because that is what renegade doctors think is best then you are kidding yourself. Kevorkian "assisted" people who were not even terminally ill or suffering any sort of pain whatsoever.

Yeah, you brought up coercion, so my addressing it is in no way a strawman, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you accidentally included it in bold. Of course, yes, some people will try to hasten the deaths of "loved" ones. That happens already in a wide variety of ways, and is one of several reasons why laws like this one have safeguards in place.

That reason, by itself, is nowhere near compelling enough to refuse to allow people agency over their own lives.

And yes, there are plenty of people who live helplessly for weeks or months in constant pain, in contexts in which a DNR is not going to help them. This website has several examples: Personal stories - Dignity in Dying

So I guess you've got to ask yourself, why are you against freedom of choice? You started your comments on this thread with a partisan statement, so now I'll include mine. I thought right-wingers were supposed to be all about personal freedom. But I guess sometimes it's about stepping in to substitute your judgment over the judgment of someone who's dying. Have I got that right? You can tell them when they're no longer allowed to chose how to live, or how to die? You know better than they do?
 
Story at Russia Today: Vermont legalizes assisted suicide ? RT USA

This is good news-- a step closer to the humane treatment of those with terminal conditions.

It is good news, and it is a step in the right direction, but it will never be enough, in my view, until the government stops legally standing in the way of any citizen's desire to end their own life in a humane and civil way.
 
It is good to allow people who are terminal to chose to end their lives. The only reason i see to force terminal patients to exist on treatment programs that are not going to cure them or in many cases take away their pain is for the profit of the medical field who is going to ravage their estates and take money from the insurance programs and federal government for a life the person does not want to continue. What some people just do not get is that these people are not living well. They are suffering from pain. No, that pain is not taken away by our best pain killers. there is no hope for these people in another day without pain. What is worse is that they pay for those days as do we because the medical associations want some more cash for what is basically livestock in pain in their beds. One should also note these people cannot go out and commit suicide. They are often bed ridden and have no ability to end their own lives. They cannot go out and shoot themselves, or even climb up to the roof and toss themselves to their deaths.

This is not a choice that effects anyone aside from the person who wants out. Allowing them this freedom does not take away your freedom to chose to exist in pain and go through the hell for a couple more days of suffering. If you want to live you can do it. Let those who do not die in their own way. This is something that the person makes the choice to do for themselves. This is not something insurance or even the hospital is choosing for them.

I would also like to point out that when you are sucked dry and the cost of your care becomes more than the benefits the hospital can receive for your care they will pretty much let your medical care go. Poor people often come to the point when they are terminal that the hospital just puts them on pain killers and stops treatment. They do not kill them, but they also do not treat them with anything but some morphine which is often limited to keep the person from dying because the hospital can get enough money to do that at a profit. The reason to oppose a medical overdose is because of the money for the hospitals and not some love for human life. The opponents can pretend it is some moral opposition, but it just simply isn't so, and those are your values and not the ones you have to live with when you force them on someone else.
 
I would not rather they die that way, but pain can usually be managed short of killing someone. Either way, the same argument could be made for the poor--why not euthanize them to put them out of their misery?

Bold: There comes a point where even drugs do not mitigate the pain. It's a mercy to kill em if they wish it.

As for the poor part...WTF? I am poor. I am in no way miserable. And if you're thinking of those that have to eat dirt sometimes, well, the poor can be made far more comfortable than those in excruciating pain. So no, that arguement in no way holds ANY water.
 
It is pro-death--how much more direct can one be than that. There is nothing that prevents a terminal patient from killing themselves now. In fact, they usually have enough meds to kill an elephant if they so desire. What the law does is now allows relatives and doctors to coerce the person into signing a piece of paper, legalizing their extermination. Whatever happened to that "Do no harm" thing in the medical code of ethics?

Most people that are on that many meds can barely move thier hand much less grab a bottle of pills.
 
I would not rather they die that way, but pain can usually be managed short of killing someone.

Good to know that you feel confident in the Government mandating how a person "Deals with their pain" in cases of a terminal illness. Good to see a criticizer of a "Blue state" is so "Pro-big government".

Either way, the same argument could be made for the poor--why not euthanize them to put them out of their misery?

Because there's a SIGNIFICANT difference between an individual CHOOSING of their own volition to end their life when they are terminally ill and the state choosing to end the life of poor people because the state believes they're miserable.

Not stupidity at all, unless you are talking about the pro-euthanasia movement.

Or in your case, the Pro-big government and Anti-Freedom movement.
 
Back
Top Bottom