"Euthanasia": Imposed Death: Physician Assisted Suicide

Current Events, World Discussion, Opinions etc
30 posts Page 1 of 2
Grand Inquisitor
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:08 pm


"Euthanasia": Imposed Death: Physician Assisted Suicide

What's the BIG DEAL? Euthanasia literally translated from Greek means "good death." Some who promote euthanasia call it "mercy killing." Death by euthanasia is neither good nor merciful. Therefore, in this publication, the more accurate term, "imposed death," (in Greek it would be called "epivalothanasia") is frequently substituted for "euthanasia" and "assisted suicide"

You may ask: Why should I be concerned? Why do I need to read this publication? Because the whole human race has a stake in the answer to the question, "Should imposed death be permitted and regulated by law?" History teaches us that a society which does not respect and protect all human life will ultimately bring about its own destruction.

Allowing certain people to be killed because their lives are viewed as "not worth living" or "burdensome" has profound repercussions for all of us. Devaluing one human life devalues all human life. (See the true stories in our "Case in Point" features.)

Advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide use terms like "choice in dying" and "self-determination." They promote the social and legal acceptance of the "right to die" — that is, the "right" for individuals to choose how, when, where and why to die, and to receive assistance in dying from others. Although the expression "right to die" is seductive, giving governments the right to authorize our "right to die" begins the progression from voluntary imposed death to involuntary imposed death. Who will decide for those who cannot make their own choices? At what point does a "right" become an expectation, even a duty?

Instead of pursuing a "right to die," let us strive to create an environment, a culture of life, in which no person feels compelled to seek the "quick fix" of death and every person's life is respected by society and protected by law.


Imposed Death in the U.S.

In the United States, while active euthanasia is still basically illegal, Living Will laws and court decisions have sanctioned euthanasia by omission. Assisted suicide is now considered legal in three states — Oregon, Washington and Montana.

Legalizing the "Right to Die"

In 1967, the educational branch of the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) introduced the Living Will as a tool to "promote discussion of euthanasia." Soon after, a campaign to pass laws making Living Wills legal documents was launched. In 1975, ESA changed its name to the Society for the Right to Die (SRD), improving its image by purging "euthanasia" (a reminder of the horrors of the German euthanasia program) from its name. The very next year, SRD tasted success: California enacted the world's first Living Will law, the "Natural Death Act."

Like dominoes, state after state fell for the claim that Living Will laws were necessary to give patients the right to refuse unwanted medical procedures, tubes and machines ahead of time in case they were ever incapacitated. In reality. Living Wills blurred the distinction between allowing a natural death and sending someone to an early grave. They were designed to be the first step toward gaining full blown acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

SRD involved itself in numerous "right to die" court cases which resulted in judicially sanctioned removal of feeding tubes (food and fluids) from severely brain-damaged patients. Choosing death by dehydration and starvation for disabled people, who could not speak for themselves, was hailed as some- how protecting their "right" to refuse unwanted treat- ment even if they had never expressed such a wish.

In 1991, SRD changed its name to Choice in Dying. The notion that death is a choice, that people should have the "right to die" on their own terms — or someone else's terms — had become mainstream.


Next Step: Physician- Assisted Suicide

Derek Humphry, a British journalist, "assisted" his first wife, Jean, to kill herself by poisoning her morning coffee; then wrote a book about it called Jean 's Way: A Love Story. Humphry and his second wife, Ann Wickett Humphry, moved to America where they started the Hemlock Society (HS) in 1980. Appropri- ately named after the poison used by ancient Greeks for state-assisted suicide, the Hemlock Society's purpose was to promote the unrestricted right to "self-deliverance." HS argued that euthanasia and assisted suicide were not killing, but rather compassion, if the person wanted to die.

When Ann discovered that she had breast cancer, the same illness Jean had battled, Derek first encouraged her to end her life, then abandoned her. Sadly, her life did eventually end in suicide. This series of events leads to a question: does promotion of "self-deliverance" have anything really to do with compassion?

HS-sponsored "physician-aid-in-dying" initiatives were rejected by voters in Washington in 1991 and California in 1992. The initiatives would have permitted both lethal injections and assisted suicide for patients diagnosed as terminally ill. Proponents attributed their defeat to the public's aversion to doctors killing patients and to opponents' ads depicting a syringe-wielding physician. Learning by trial and error, they limited their next proposal — the "Death With Dignity Act" — to physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and succeeded in gathering enough signatures to get it on the Oregon ballot in 1994.

PAS supporters portrayed themselves as compassionate people who just wanted the legal right to gently end unbearable, untreatable pain. This was a stretch. The Act, in fact, did not mention pain at all. The only prerequisite for granting a request for PAS was the diagnosis (or misdiagnosis) of an illness expected to lead to death within six months.

Oregon voters narrowly (5 1 %) approved the "Death With Dignity Act." Held up by legal challenges, it finally went into effect in 1997. Jubilant PAS activists expected other states to quickly follow Oregon's lead, but that did not happen. Since 1994, close to 90 assisted suicide measures have failed. In state after state they've encountered determined grassroots opponents — the disabled and elderly, poor people and ethnic minorities, church-goers and non- believers, doctors and nurses, etc. Their fundamental objections:

♦ A person whose life is seen by others as "not worth living" or "not worth the cost" of treatment may be given no other option than PAS.
♦ The act's "safeguards" (e.g., the request for PAS must be voluntary, not coerced) may appear protec- tive, but there are no provisions for enforcing them.
♦ A plea for assistance to kill oneself is a cry for help, not a choice to be honored.
♦ It's simply wrong to use physicians and pharmacists to help people kill themselves.

Oregon stood alone as the only state where a doctor could legally prescribe a lethal dose of drugs for a patient to commit suicide - until 2008.

Washington and Montana

On November 4, 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize PAS. 59% of voters approved Initiative 1000, modeled after Oregon's law. The new law is to take effect in July 2009.

It is heartening to report that the Washington State Medical Association is outspoken in its opposition to PAS. Also Eastern Washington's largest hospital system. Providence Health and Services, will forbid physicians from helping patients die at any of its facilities.^ Compassion & Choices (C&C) and Death With Dignity National Center (DDNC), the groups that led the I- 1 000 campaign, refuse to use the "s" word (suicide). They reject the term "physician-assisted suicide" and instead urge the use of more appealing terms like "death with dignity" and "aid- in-dying." However, Washington's medical providers aren't stupid. Self-killing, even with a doctor's help, is suicide. Legalization of assisted suicide does not turn a crime into a nice medical treatment.

A month after Washington voters legalized PAS, a Montana court followed suit. "The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally [ill] patient to die with dignity," wrote Judge Dorothy McCarter in the opinion for Montana's First District Judicial Court. Compassion & Choices legal counsel presented arguments in the case brought by a retired truck driver suffering from leukemia and four physicians seeking legal sanction for PAS. The case is likely to be appealed.


Image

What's Next?

In his 1991 book. Final Exit (a how-to commit suicide manual), Derek Humphry predicted, "When we have statutes on the books permitting lawful physician aid- in-dying for the terminally ill, I believe that along with this reform there will come a more tolerant attitude to the other exceptional cases." C&C and DDNC are banking on that. They see legalization of PAS as the second step (legalizing Living Wills was the first) towards sanctioning imposed death.

1 Marker, Rita. Deadly Compassion. 1993. | Stucke, John. "Medical providers say they won't assist with suicides." SpokesmanReview.com. 11/6/08.
Information International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide www. intemationaltaskforce . org 800-958-5678 History Timeline of Imposed Death www.humanlife . org/timeline .php

The Progression of Death Rhetoric

1938 The Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) was founded to promote legalization of euthanasia, both voluntary and involuntary.

1967 ESA established the Euthanasia Educational Council (EEC) which introduced the Living Will, a tool to gain acceptance of euthanasia

1975 ESA changed its name to the Society for the Right to Die (SRD).

1979 EEC changed its name to Concern for Dying (CFD) and split from SRE).

1980 The Hemlock Society (HS) was formed to promote death-on-demand.

1991 SRD and CFD — ^having remerged in 1990 — became Choice in Dying.

1993 Compassion in Dying (CID), an HS spin-off, was created to provide information and assistance to sick people who want to die and to promote "aid- in-dying" laws.

1994 The Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC) was established in Washington D.C. to work to replicate the new voter- approved Oregon "physician-assisted suicide" (PAS) law in other states.

1997 Last Acts, a coalition of more than 100 prominent organizations, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was established purportedly to improve the quality of end-of-life care. ("Improving care" is often code for hastening death.)

1999 Choice in Dying became Partnership for Caring (PFC). PFC managed the Last Acts program.

2003 HS started End of Life Choices, a political action committee, in Denver.

2003 The Oregon Death with Dignity Legal Defense and Education Center, the HS spin-off that originally drafted the "Oregon Death With Dignity Act," became part of DDNC, which now describes itself as "the leader in this movement."

2004 Final Exit Network was started by disgruntled former HS and End of Life Choices members, including HS founder Derek Humphry. In 2007, the group was implicated in the suicide of a 58-year old Arizona woman with a history of mental illness. Network volunteer "guides" had assisted her "fmal exit."

2004 PFC merged with Last Acts to form Last Acts Partnership, which folded soon thereafter. Some Last Acts mem- bers moved on to positions of influence in the realm of hospice and palliative care.

2005 Compassion in Dying and End of Life Choices joined to form Compassion & Choices (C&C) with headquarters in both Portland and Denver. C&C describes its program as "working to improve care and expand choice at the end of life," but its actual efforts have been directed at only one "choice" — death. C&C, along with DDNC, has led campaigns to legalize PAS throughout the U.S. Since 1997, CID/C&C members have facilitated the majority of physician-assisted suicides in Oregon.


The Bottom Line

These groups all use nice-sounding words like rights, compassion, dignity and choice, but every one of them came from the Euthanasia Society of America and the Hemlock Society — deadly names for deadly organizations. Their main agenda has been to take morally repulsive acts that end the lives of medically vulnerable human beings and make them into accepted medical practices. No matter how they try to sanitize it, killing people when they are down is not dignified or compassionate.

Follow the Money

For some people in government and health care, limiting medical care and ending the lives of certain patients makes economic sense. One /expert put it bluntly, "A quick death is a cheap death."

"Futile care" used to mean that the patient would not benefit from treatment and, therefore, treatment was useless and should be stopped, a sound 4 medical decision. Today, this term has an entirely different meaning. "Futile care" theory is the proposition that a physician is entitled to refuse to provide treatment, and even food and fluids, when he/she believes the quality of a patient's life is too low or the health care cost is too high to justify further treatment. In other words, it's the patient who is deemed useless, not the treatment.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, in his book Forced Exit, suggests that money is "the most influential and dangerous force driving the euthanasia juggernaut." In fact, advance directives (Living Will and Health Care Power of Attorney documents) work hand in hand with hospital "futile care" policies.

Human Life Alliance routinely go along with patients' decisions to refuse treatment. However, when patients do not choose to forgo treatment, "futile care" policies allow that "choice" to be made by physicians and/or hospital ethics committees. Implicit in this "right to die" ethic is the frightening notion that some of us have a duty to die.

In 1987, Dr. Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the way to attack high health care costs was to encourage Americans to sign Living Wills. In due course, the federal Patient S elf-Determination Act (attached not to a health bill, but to the 1 990 budget bill) became law. It requires facilities and programs that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds to tell every adult patient about their "right" to refuse treatment — i.e., sign a Living Will.

In 2005, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt told hospital administrators that encouraging new Medicare participants to write Living Wills "would not just save families anguish but would likely save the system a remarkable amount of money. . ." High sounding goals such as "saving families anguish," "doing what is best for patients" and "improving care" often camouflage cost-containment strategies.

One way to spot potential problems is to review a hospital's or nursing home's policy on withdrawal or withholding of tube-feeding. If a patient is not in the throes of the dying process, permanently withholding food and water will cause his/her death.

Food and water is ordinary, basic care whether it is delivered on a tray or through a tube. Unfortunately, imposed death by dehydration and starvation is becoming commonplace. Simply put — it saves money.


Case

"I'm not ready to die. . .I've got things I'd still like to do." This was 64-year-old Barbara Wagner's reaction to a crushing letter from the Oregon Health Plan informing her that it would not cover a prescription to slow the growth of lung cancer. "It was horrible," she said. The unsigned letter stated that the plan would not pay for Tarceva, an expensive chemotherapy drug, but instead would cover comfort care, including assisted suicide. William Toffler, M.D., National Director of Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, was disturbed: "People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose." He also noted that the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life — drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

(Sources: ABC News Internet Ventures, 8/6/08; Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff, 7/31/08, www.katu.com/news /261 19539.html)

Are you sure you would never want to be "hooked up to a machine"?

If your life or the life of a loved one may depend on having correct information about the ventilator, commonly called a "respirator."

Respiration is a bodily function (of gas exchange from the respiratory system to the circulatory system and vice versa), not a machine's function. It can only occur when the body's respiratory and circulatory systems are intact and functioning. A ventilator is an aid to breathing. The ventilator machine supports the ventilation part of breathing — moving air into and out of the lungs. It does not and can not cause the other part of breathing — respiration. Thus, the machine should always be referred to by its accurate name, "ventilator."

Many people with disabilities use ventilators every day of their lives to assist their breathing. For them, a ventilator is a necessity of life which allows them not only to continue living, but to breathe easier and enjoy life to its fullest. The ventilator is also commonly and effectively used to save lives.

I had not given much thought to the indispensable role that a ventilator plays in the healing process until three real life incidents brought the truth home to me.

My 41 -year-old nephew was suffering from shocked lung syndrome after being injured in an automobile accident. This is a condition in which the elasticity of the lungs is greatly curtailed, causing intense pain and severe shortness of breath. To give his body a chance to heal without fighting for breath, the doctors induced a comatose state and put him on a ventilator. He was on the ventilator for more than three weeks. His life was hanging by a thread or, more literally, a machine. When he was finally taken off the ventilator, his body took over, eventually completing the healing process. Today he is back working at his heavy-duty construction job — thanks to the ventilator and endless prayers.

In the second incident, a dear friend sustained a head injury. Because his traumatized body started to shut down following surgery to close the wound, he too was put into a medically induced coma and hooked up to a ventilator. He was in critical condition. After five days, he was taken off the ventilator and his natural breathing functions took over. This friend, who at 80 doesn't believe in retirement, is back working full- time, none the worse for the wear.

Imagine the outcome had he signed a Living Will that stated he would never want to be put on a "respirator." If you have made a state- ment to this effect, either orally or in writing, I advise you to promptly and emphatically rescind it.

In the third incident, a friend had a cardiac arrest. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance and subsequently pro- nounced "brain dead." The attending physicians wanted to disconnect life support, but his wife wouldn't hear of it until all of their children could get home to say their goodbyes. After 72 hours, the sorrowing children had bid their father farewell. When life support was disconnected, their father sat up in bed and started talking to the family!He went home shortly there- after and the family was able to enjoy his company for four more years before he was called home to his Maker.

WHAT IF his wife had given consent to stop life support before his body's own healing powers had a chance to take their course with the aid of the ventilator?


Image

Thirsty, Too Bad

Widespread legal and medical endorsement of death by dehydration and starvation has led to confusion. Is it right or wrong to withhold or withdraw food and water from seriously ill, physically or mentally disabled, or persistently unresponsive (so-called "vegetative") patients?

It is important to distinguish between appropriate medical decisions and discriminatory, decisions based on value judgments:

*When a person's body is shutting down during the natural dying process, or when a person is unable to receive food and fluids without harm, it is appropriate to stop providing food and water. This is a medical judgment. In such a case, the patient dies naturally from his/her disease or injury.

When a person is not dying (or not dying quickly enough), food and fluids, whether provided by mouth or tube, are sometimes withdrawn in order to cause death simply because the person is viewed as having an unacceptably low quality of life and/or imposing burdens on others. This is a value judgment. In such a case, the person is deliberately killed by dehydration and starvation.

Consider the cases of two elderly women. In 1984, 92-year-old Mary Hier had lived in a state hospital for over fifty years. Demented, but happy, she thought she was the Queen of England. Mary was not terminally ill, but had needed a feeding tube for many years. When her gastrostomy (stomach) tube became dislodged, a court denied permission to replace it, declaring that it would be "a major medical procedure" with "relatively high risk" due to her age. Just as Mary's case was being reported, the same newspaper carried another story about a 94-year- old woman who was doing well after "minor surgery to correct a nutritional problem." The surgery, performed under local anesthesia on an outpatient basis, was the insertion of a gastrostomy tube. The woman was Rose Kennedy, matriarch of a rich and politically powerful family. Mary Hier's life would have been prematurely ended without last minute intervention by a physician and an attorney who exposed the inequity. Her tube was replaced. Both women lived for a number of years longer.

In too many instances, whether inserting a feeding tube is considered a "major" or "minor" medical proce- dure depends upon whether the person is viewed by others as expendable or valuable, burdensome or beloved.

Advocates of euthanasia assert that providing food and fluids to patients is medical treatment that may be withheld or withdrawn. On the con- trary, food and water are basic human needs and therefore basic human rights.

Feeding tubes are used for various reasons. Tube-feeding is often simpler, less costly and safer than spoon-feeding a patient who is a slow eater or chokes on food. It may be necessary for comfort, to ensure adequate nutrition and hydration, or to sustain life when a person is unable to swallow.

Real food and water are delivered through a feeding tube, though they are often inaccurately referred to as "artificial nutrition and hydration." It is the feeding tube that is artificial, much as a baby bottle is an artificial means of delivering real nourishment to an infant who is not breastfed.


Dr. William Burke, a St. Louis neurologist, describes what happens to patients as they die an unnatural death from dehydration:

They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nose- bleeds because of the drying out of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day with- out a glass of water! Death by dehy- dration takes 10 to 14 days. It is an extremely agonizing death. *

Food and fluids do not become "treatment" simply because they are taken by tube anymore than penicillin and Pepto-Bismol become "food" when taken by mouth. Those who claim otherwise do so to advance their own agenda. In 1984, at a World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference, bioethicist Dr. Helga Kuhse explained the strategy of euthanasia advocates:

"If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care, especially the removal of food and fluids, they will see what a painful way this is to die, and then, in the patient's best interest, they will accept the lethal injection."

Deliberately causing a human being's death by dehydration and starvation is inhuman. It is beneath the dignity of both patient and medical care provider. Nonetheless, in every state it is now legal to impose death by taking away life- sustaining food and water. These laws are unjust and discriminatory. They imply that some people are "better off dead" and society is better off without them. They open the door to medical murder by lethal injection.

"Always to care, never to kill" has been the constant motto of honor- able medical professionals. No law can make killing patients, regardless of their perceived "quality of life," medically or morally right.

* Smith, Wesley J. "Dehydration Nation." The Human Life Review. Fall 2003. Vol. XXIX. No. 4. pp. 69-79.

Image

Image

Case

Lauren Richardson was 22 and pregnant when she overdosed on heroine. Diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state, she continued to receive medical treatment until her daughter's birth. Lauren's mother, Edith Towers, wanted to remove her feeding tube and was awarded guardianship when she testified that Lauren did not wish to be kept alive if there was no hope. Lauren's father. Randy Richard- son, appealed the ruling and took it public, which delayed the court order allowing removal of Lauren's life support. Randy posted a question on Lauren's website: "What are you going to tell Lauren's daughter if she asks 'Did you try everything before you gave up?'" That question hit Edith "real hard" and changed her mind. Lauren's mother is thankful the legal process took long enough for her to reconsider her position. Lauren is now able to communicate and move all her limbs, and is trying to sit up on her own. Her father will be taking her home to continue her recovery.
(Sources: The News Journal, 11/21/08, Lifefor lauren.org/updates.html)

Persistent Vegetative state

Human beings, even if seriously impaired in their higher brain functions, are not "vegetables." The dehumanizing label "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) was crafted in 1972 just as the euthanasia move- ment began to pick up steam. It became more familiar in the 1980s as "right to die" activists, courts, state legislatures, physicians and bioethicists (1) began to use PVS diagnoses as justification for withdrawing food and fluids from severely brain- injured patients in order to make them die.

Many people have blind faith in medical labeling. Most probably think that PVS is a simple diagnosis. However, experts disagree about what it is and methods for diagnostic testing are disputed. PVS is grouped in the International Classification of Diseases with "Symptoms, Signs and Ill-Defined Conditions."

A vegetative state is not a coma. According to the 1994 Multi- Society Task Force on the medical aspects of PVS (MSTF), a person in a coma is neither awake nor aware; a person in a vegetative state is awake but not aware. The MSTF defined a "persistent vegetative state" as a vegetative state that lasts more than one month. (2)

The person in PVS has sleep-wake cycles, eye movement, and normal respiratory, circulatory and digestive functions. Individuals in PVS are seldom on any life- sustaining equipment other than a feeding tube. Some can swallow, others cannot. Some have random movement, some do not. Some have been physically injured. Others have had a stroke or have dementia. In some cases, the brain itself appears to change. In others it appears unchanged.

In simple terms, the diagnosis of PVS is based on lack of evidence of awareness of self and environment. However, it is not that simple.

Some patients who are misdiagnosed to be in PVS do exhibit evidence of awareness, but the diagnostician misses (or dismisses) the evidence. They may be mute and immobile ("locked-in"), but mentally alert and able to communicate by blinking or through aids such as computers, if someone gives them the opportunity. Other patients retain some measure of awareness even though they do not exhibit any evidence of it. Patients who have recovered from such a state can recall things that were said or done to them while no one knew they were aware.

The Washington Post, 9/8/2006, reported a case that astounded neurologists. A sophisticated brain scan, upon a woman supposedly in a vegetative state, indicated that she was clearly aware. The researchers told her to imagine she was playing tennis. They were shocked to see her brain "light up" exactly as an uninjured person's would. They repeated the test again and again with the same result.


Misdiagnosis is Not Uncommon

* In 2002, a study of mistaken diagnoses of PVS revealed a 15% error rate. (3)

* Data gathered by the MSTF, on a group of 434 adult patients who were in PVS as a result of traumatic injury, showed that three months after injury, 33% had regained consciousness. By six months, 46%) had and at 12 months, 52% had. (4)

* Out of 40 patients diagnosed as being in PVS, 17 (43%)) were later found to be alert, aware, and often able to express a simple wish. The author, London neurologist Dr. Keith Andrews said, "It is disturbing to think that some patients who were aware had for several years been treated as being vegetative." (5)

The Times of London recently reported that an unprecedented experiment, conducted with a special kind of scanner, by Cambridge neuroscientist Dr. Adrian Owen, showed that a woman had been wrongly diagnosed to be in PVS. "It revealed evidence of fluctuating levels of brain activation when she was presented with pictures of her parents," according to the report. "From that point, she started her long journey back into the world." Scientists hope to develop functional brain tests which can be done at the patient's bedside that won't entail high cost or bulky machines. Using these tests to determine the extent of a brain injury may lead to better treatment and reduce the frequency of PVS misdiagnosis. (6)


The Unconscious World is Complex

Studies show that patients diagnosed to be in PVS feel pain. Indeed, a University of Michigan neurologist, in one of the most complete studies, concluded that when food and fluids are withdrawn [to impose death], the patient should be sedated. (7)

Some objections to deliberately ending the lives of patients in PVS have rested on the hope that "they might recover." Let's face it: many people with disabilities will not recover. Starving and dehydrating them to death is not a cure. It is cruel and inhuman.

It is now common for persistently unresponsive or minimally conscious patients who are not killed by dehydration to wind up warehoused in nursing homes, deprived of rehabilitation and beneficial medical treatment. The unconscious world is far more complex than most of us can imagine. Those who have severe brain damage may still enjoy touch, scent, taste, and sound. They may also feel loneliness, fear, and despair.

Their inability to satisfy our longing for response does not justify abandonment or imposed death.


Case in Point

A psychologist at Putney's Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability told John Cornwell, a writer for the Times (London), this amusing story: "Young man with motorbike head injury in a coma. His mum, a keen evangelical, comes every day with friends to sing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" by his bedside. She's hoping to stimu- late his brain into action. It works: he comes round, but he can't speak. So they fit him up with one of those Stephen Hawking-type laptops, and the first words he speaks are: 'For God's sake. Mum, shut it!'" Cornwell commented, "That's about as funny as it gets on a brain- injury ward, but there's a serious take-home message. Even minimally aware patients can retain emotions, personality, a capacity to suffer — and, as the young biker showed, attitude."
Source: The Sunday Times, 12/9/07

Case: Narrow Escape From Planned Death

" On September 11, 2005, 11 -year-old Haleigh Poutre was admitted to Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts. She was unconscious and clinging to life after allegedly being beaten by her adoptive mother and stepfather. Just eight days later, Raleigh's doctors declared that she was "virtually brain dead" with no hope of recovery. This hasty diagnosis prompted the state Department of Social Services (DSS), which had custody of Haleigh, to seek permission for removal of her ventilator and feeding tube. A juvenile court judge granted the request. Fortunately, DSS commissioner Harry Spence went to visit Haleigh before acting on the court order. To his surprise, he found her breathing on her own, conscious and able to respond to simple commands. Her planned death was called off and she was moved to a rehabilitation center where she continues to improve three years later. She is now writing her name, brushing her own hair, and feeding herself.


Sources: "Danger Zone. " Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online. February 1, 2006; http://michellemalkin. com /2008/11/20/the miracle-of-haleigh-poutre/

(1) Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the interplay between life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, philosophy and theology. | (2) Mappes, Thomas A. "Persistent Vegetative State, Prospective Thinking and Advance Directives." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2003: Vol. 13. No. 2: 119-139 1 (3) Ibid. I 4 Ibid. | (4) British Medical Journal. 7/6/96. | (5) Cornwell, John. "40% of coma patients in 'vegetative state' may be misdiagnosed, says a new report." The (London) Sunday Times. 12/9/07. | (6) Detroit Free Press. 6/26/90: lOA.

Case

In 1990, 26-year-old Terri Schindler Schiavo suffered brain damage when she mysteriously collapsed and stopped breathing. Several years later, Michael Schiavo, her husband who was also her court-appointed guardian, sought judicial approval to remove her feeding tube and thereby end her life. Terri 's parents. Bob and Mary Schindler, along with her brother and sister, desperately struggled to save her life. The highly publicized tug of war between Michael and the Schindlers alerted millions to the fact that our judicial system has a history of sanctioning the treat- ment of disabled human beings in a way that would be criminal if done to a dog.

Contrary to inaccurate news reports, Terri was not on a ventilator, not terminally ill, and not "brain dead." Physicians disagreed about whether or not she was in a persistent vegetative state. What we do know is that she was a profoundly disabled human being totally dependent on others for her care. All her family wanted was to take her home and care for her, but that would not happen.

In March 2005, people from all over the country made their way to Florida to pray for and demonstrate their solidarity with Terri Schiavo. They gathered outside the hospice where she was being dehydrated to death. The media were mostly unsympathetic to these last friends of Terri and their expression of outrage that a court had seen her disability as reason to impose a death sentence. John Zarella, covering the case for CNN, described their concern as "religious zealotry" and implied that they were "extremists" akin to criminals who murder abortion doctors.

Incredibly, on the same program, Zarella portrayed hundreds of people working to save two dozen dolphins as heroes. He reported, "The volunteers are in the pool 24/7 holding the animals and keeping their blowholes out of the water so they can breathe. A veterinarian injects the dolphins with vitamin E to help with muscle cramping. These mam- mals are unable to eat on their own. Kate Banick uses a feeding tube to get them the nutrition they need." Not a word about zealotry or extremism. It is a tragic irony that, in pre- World War II Germany (1933), strong animal protection laws were passed. Fifteen years later, the Nuremberg Tribunal declared the Nazi euthanasia program a "crime against humanity." U.S. Brigadier General Taylor, chief counsel, concluded, "If the principles announced in this law had been followed for human beings as well, this indictment would never have been filed. It is perhaps the deepest shame of the defendants that it probably never occurred to them that human beings should be treated with at least equal humanity."

The soul-searching question we must ask our- selves is: Are we at peace with deliberately dehydrating human beings to death, or does it haunt us?


Image

The Catholic Teaching in regards to Euthanasia

Excerpted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

2324 Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
ALEXUP
Posts: 833
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:07 pm


So is it ok to put my dog down if he can't walk and he is in a lot of pain? Or should I prolong his pain with drugs? I would love it if some people kept me alive so I could spend my last few months in agonising pain.

Fuck you

Fuck Jesus

Fuck this false idol you call a god
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


You sure do a lot to convince us that your god is an awful cunt.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


You know, I probably would have read the Bible by now if it wasn't for useless Christian cunts quoting it all the time.

Like a dodgy salesman trying to hock you a dud car, something doesn't seem quite right.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Grand Inquisitor wrote :
morally repulsive acts


The only thing that is morally repulsive is the existence of people like you who will do anything possible to keep actual human beings alive in excruciating pain and humiliating indignity for no other reason than your own selfish vain delusions.
Grand Inquisitor
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:08 pm


Euthanasia, sometimes called mercy killing, is the deliberate killing of another person with the motive of ending his suffering. This can be achieved by doing something (e.g. giving a lethal injection) or by failing to do something (e.g. withholding life saving treatment) in order to cause or hasten death. It is morally equivalent to assisted suicide, which involves helping someone to kill himself (e.g. by providing lethal medication).

No one wants to suffer. No one wants to see their loved ones suffer. This is an important reason why a significant majority of Australians are said to support voluntary euthanasia and why there are continual attempts to legalise the practice in Australia. But many people who claim to support voluntary euthanasia do not fully understand or appreciate what euthanasia encompasses. Like other life and death issues, euthanasia evokes all sorts of emotions, memories, prejudices and misconceptions which can lead us to settle in favour of myths over reality, and sadly, death over life.



MYTH # 1

Euthanasia allows people to ‘die with dignity’.

REALITY

People do not ‘lose’ their dignity as death approaches

Our dignity – our great value as a human person – does not depend upon the ‘quality’ of our lives; it is found in our very being. Even if we face death emaciated or delirious or unable to feed, speak or toilet ourselves, we always retain our dignity and continue to reflect God’s glory. ‘Dying with dignity’ means accepting the reality of our human condition and showing reverence and gratitude for the gift of life. It involves living through the dying process in a way which reflects our great value as a human being: accepting the love and care of those around us and waiting for death to come naturally. By contrast, voluntary euthanasia is a tragic rejection of the truth about the value of our lives and the care of others. It is an ‘undignified’ way to die.



MYTH # 2

Euthanasia is a compassionate response to suffering.

REALITY

Genuine compassion moves us to do all that we can to eliminate suffering, but never to eliminate the sufferer.

Compassion literally means ‘to suffer alongside’. It is the resolve to genuinely invest yourself in people who are suffering; to offer the best assistance you can to relieve their physical and emotional anguish and to help them maintain hope and self esteem. As Pope John Paul II taught: “True ‘compassion’ leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.”
[The Gospel of Life, n. 66]


MYTH # 3

Euthanasia is a personal choice.

REALITY

Euthanasia is a public act with public consequences.

One person facilitating the death of another is a matter of significant public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us.

Even when it is freely requested by competent persons, the choice to die by euthanasia gives dangerous public witness to the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘life not worth living.’ This tempts us to make this judgment about the lives of other sick, disabled or elderly people in similar circumstances.

These vulnerable people also become more susceptible to lowered self esteem and hopelessness, and risk feeling pressured into euthanasia for fear of becoming a burden to others. In this way, the ‘choice to die’ may be experienced as a ‘duty to die’. Even young people who may be suffering psychologically and emotionally may feel affirmed in their belief that they have a ‘life not worth living’.



MYTH # 4

Euthanasia can be closely regulated to avoid abuse

REALITY

Overseas experience confirms the reality of a ‘slippery slope’ from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia.

Medically assisted killing in the Netherlands was originally intended to be tightly regulated and strictly limited to adults who were able to make a free and informed request to die. Unfortunately, the practice of euthanasia has now expanded to include many vulnerable people, including the unconscious, disabled babies, children, and people with psychiatric illnesses and dementia. Logically, if euthanasia is permitted out of ‘mercy’ for suffering people who request it, in ‘fairness’ it will eventually be extended to suffering people who are unable to make a free and informed request.



MYTH # 5

Legalised euthanasia would not impact upon the provision of good end of life care.

REALITY

Palliative care cannot flourish alongside euthanasia.

The medical profession’s deep commitment not to abandon those who suffer has been a powerful motivation in the development of modern medicine. But medical killing discourages alternative approaches to suffering, such as the provision of good palliative care and pain management. This is especially likely in a rapidly-aging society with escalating health care costs, where there is increasing pressure to consider the economic impact of patient care.



MYTH # 6

Doctors can be trusted to practise euthanasia ‘professionally.’

REALITY

Legally sanctioned medical killing would corrupt doctors both individually and as a profession.

Doctors see themselves as the bringers of life, hope and healing. But once they intentionally kill their patients, however well-meaningly, they become deliverers of death as well as guardians of life. The goals of medicine become not only life, health, and comfort, but also death. Such doctors can no longer promise to always protect and promote the life and health of their patients.



MYTH # 7

Doctors already practise euthanasia by administering large doses of pain-killers to dying patients.

REALITY

There is a real difference, both ethically and legally, between intending pain relief and intending death.

Doctors will often foresee that giving increasing doses of pain-killers to comfort a patient may also have the side effect of shortening that patient’s life. But where the intention is to relieve suffering and not to hasten death, these doctors are not performing euthanasia; they are providing good palliative care.



MYTH # 8

Euthanasia needs to be legalised so that people can have some control over their dying.

REALITY

The current prohibition of euthanasia does not prevent dying patients from exercising choice at the end of life.

Treatments which have become, or are likely to be, futile or overlyburdensome may be ethically and lawfully withheld or withdrawn at a patient’s request, even where it is foreseen that death may come sooner as a result of this choice. To forego such treatments is not the equivalent of euthanasia or suicide, but an acceptance of the human condition in the face of death. This is not a choice for death, but a choice about how to live while dying. It is not a refusal of life, but a refusal of overly burdensome or futile treatment.



THE REALITY

The ultimate REA LIT Y is that human life and death are in God’s hands.

over the gift of life: the time and circumstances of death are not ours to choose, for ourselves or for others. This means that euthanasia is never an acceptable response to human suffering.

As John Paul II explained in The Gospel of Life: “Man’s life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life; man cannot do with it as he wills… If it is true that human life is in the hands of God, it is no less true that these are loving hands, like those of a mother who accepts, nurtures and takes care of her child.” [The Gospel of Life, n. 39].

Even though we may not fully understand why God permits suffering, we can be certain that He will never abandon us.



“… euthanasia is a false solution to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man. Indeed, the true response cannot be to put someone to death, however “kindly”, but rather to witness to the love that helps people to face their pain and agony in a human way. We can be certain that no tear, neither of those who are suffering nor of those who are close to them, is lost before God.” Pope Benedict XVI, Angelus Address, 1 February 2009


i) 2009 Summary of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.
ii) Ganzini L et al.” Physicians’ experiences with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act,” New England Journal of Medicine
2000; 342: 557-63.
iii) 2009 Summary of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.
iv) “The Committee to Study the Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia,” Medical decisions about the end of life, Vols.
1, 2. The Hague; 1991; Sept 1.; Hendin H. “Commentary: the case against physician-assisted suicide: for the right to
end-of-life care,” Psychiatric Times. 2004;21.
v) Rita L. Marker. “Oregon's Suicidal Approach to Health Care,” American Thinker, September 14, 2008.
vi) G. van der Wal, P. J. van der Maas, J. M. Bosma, et al., "Evaluation of the notification procedure for physician-assisted
deaths in the Netherlands," 335 New England Journal of Medicine, November 28, 1996, p. 1706.
FRACAS
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:16 pm


MYTH # 1
The catholic faith is the one true faith


Reality

It is not .....there are many ideologies one can have faith in that have a lot more plausible value...

MYTH # 2
Catholocism is much more easily accepted when rammed down ones throat

Reality

The only thing that is accepted well when slammed down your throat is a can of SOLO...and very refreshing!!


MYTH # 3
People like reading your posts

Reality

IMHO Your thread/posts are boring, monotonous and full of discriminating facts that show you to be half the christian you think you are...i dont speak for everyone , but i think you should read some of the absolute dribble you copy and paste that consitutes a post and think of what jesus would say about your actions.
tract
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 6:45 pm


I am deeply bereft of time Grand Inquisitor but I garner considerable nourishment from reading the posts you have been making.

Thank you :)
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


tract wrote :
I am deeply bereft of time Grand Inquisitor but I garner considerable nourishment from reading the posts you have been making.

Thank you :)



You've changed, man :lol:


See you @ church on Sunday :D
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


Grand Inquisitor
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:08 pm


venatrix wrote :
..who will do anything possible to keep actual human beings alive in excruciating pain and humiliating indignity.

Woman, it is you that seems to have thrown your dignity and beauty on the dung-heap. But you can reclaim your innocence and dignity...

MYTH: Terminally ill patients have to die in agonizing pain.

FACT: The World Health Organization assures us that even the most severe cancer pain can be eliminated or relieved.

Patients and their families need to insist that their physicians make every effort to control pain. If the doctor doesn't have the knowledge, time or compassion to treat pain effectively, find a new doctor. Some physicians have more expertise than others in the application of pain relief. One of the best ways to find a physician successful in treating pain is a personal referral from a trusted friend or relative.

Pain control is a central concern of hospice care. Federal guidelines regulating hospice care require the hospice to make every reasonable effort to control a patient's pain. For varying reasons, some physicians may not order adequate medication for pain control. In these cases, hospice staff should intervene on behalf of the patient. It is a violation of patient's rights if physicians fail to provide needed medications or to seek advice on how to relieve patient's pain. Hospice medical directors are required by law to make sure the patient's needs are being met — including pain control.


Besides the myth that dying is always painful, there are many myths about medications such as:

♦ medications always cause heavy sedation
♦ patients develop a tolerance to pain medications so it is best to save the strongest for last
♦ some kinds of pain cannot be relieved.


Recent advances assure that all pain can be relieved by using a collaborative approach that incorporates a combination of therapies including chemotherapy, radiation, nerve blocks, physical therapies and psychosocial care.

Children with a terminal illness may be less likely to receive effective pain control because their parents and physicians don't want to "give up" on them. In their attempts to cure the child all the way to the end of life, adequate pain control may not be administered. Recognizing the child is dying is the first step in helping the child cope with their impending death and relieving their pain through adequate therapies.

An individualized pain control plan, developed collaboratively with members of the health care team, the patient, and the patient's family, will ensure pain control for the terminally ill.
ALEXUP
Posts: 833
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:07 pm


I hope you know you are going straight to hell for writing that crap
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am




Benedict my dear friend, love thy neighbour!
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


MYTH: The wedding of Peleus and Thetis.

FACT: Opioid painkillers have a strong sedative effect.

MYTH: Horus the son of Osiris

FACT: All the drugs in the world won't make the fact that you're in a hospital bed slowly dying any better.

MYTH: Jesus walking on water and shit.

FACT: You're wrong. About everything. Ever. Also nobody likes you.
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


^ oh how my heart bleeds for the poor boat people, if your ever been gypt for rent you'll know what I'm talking about!
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


Grand Inquisitor wrote :

MYTH: Terminally ill patients have to die in agonizing pain.
FACT: The World Health Organization assures us that even the most severe cancer pain can be eliminated or relieved.
...
Recent advances assure that all pain can be relieved by using a collaborative approach that incorporates a combination of therapies including chemotherapy, radiation, nerve blocks, physical therapies and psychosocial care.


You are deluded. Go spend some time in a hospital instead of behind a screen wanking over your own glory and then tell me that all pain can be adequately relieved. You insult those who have watched their friends or family die in pain despite the best that medical science has to offer, and then some. Fucking dickhead- always telling people how it is aren't you? Fuck off.
Grand Inquisitor
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:08 pm


herbsandspices wrote :
... Go spend some time in a hospital

I have worked in a nursing home; and there were numerous dying patients/residents there. One old man had a huge cancer eating away at his skull and one side of his face, which stunk of death. I know of which I speak, and what I say is true, or otherwise I would not say it.

By the way you need really to clean up your mind and life. Your mouth is like an open sewer, or offal trap, where issues forth the pestilential breath of iniquity and vulgar verbiage; a torrent the most profane ugliness.

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man." (Matt. 15:18-20)

"O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." (Matt. 12:34-35)
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


I'll concede that I probably shouldn't have resorted to bad language, only because it detracts from how incredibly wrong you are.

Because you worked in a nursing home that somehow qualifies you as an expert in state of the art pain relief medicine? Or because you you found religion this somehow qualifies you to tell others how to live, or die?

PS, writing like an 18th century text does not make your arguments more convincing- or maybe it does? Arrgh if I be speakin like a pirate, ye might take ye scurvy logic oer yonder.
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am






Erzsebet Báthory, proof that religion does not guarantee you will be a good person, and another reason why euthanasia is a bad idea.

If you would just lose the religion, you would make the best mate, the greatest Husband, and the most loving Father.
All the shit you go though, and it's all for nought!

Documentary shown for educational purposes only.
Grand Inquisitor
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:08 pm


herbsandspices wrote :

Because you worked in a nursing home that somehow qualifies you as an expert in state of the art pain relief medicine?

I did not say I was an expert THAT IS WHY I HAVE QUOTED EXPERTS; I have not written on my own authority. You know, if you would read the entirity of these posts you would learn quite a bit; they would feed a desire to do some more research. for you to will be hospitalized sooner or later.

Some of you guys blast me just because I am a traditional Catholic who lives and breathes the Faith, no matter what reasonable, excellent, beautiful, scientific, profound, pertinate, urgent or other thing I post. I have not done any of this for myself. You should could really learn a whole host of worthy knowledge if you would just drop your irrational hatred against those who follow Lord Jesus Christ, who profess the Truth, and who have objective moral principles that they unwaveringly stand by. I know what you will say to this: you will say "No, it's just you and people like you trying to ram Dogma into our lives and who don't respect other peoples paths, traditions and choices", etc, etc. And what I say to this is: How can I respect what is false and offends God, Who is subsistent Truth itself; how can I respect these doctrines of the Father of Lies and what is leading one down the broad path to destruction and damnation. I do respect peoples choices, but I simple present the best choice, and the only choice that leads to true happiness and success.

There is such thing as objective Truth you know, and objective morality. The universe is established in wonderful order; the Copernican principle is false, and so is Darwinism and neo-Darwisnism; we DID NOT evolve from animals on a random unimportant world, orbiting an ordinary star, in a typical galaxy, in an meaningless universe springing into being by random quantum fluctuations of probability in a hyperdimensional multiverse whos foundation is chaos. THIS IS A GRAVE FALSEHOOD. God created the universe from nothing, there is an order and meaning to the cosmos. Yes the universe is between 13.7 - 15 billion years old, and cosmic evolution (the true sense of the term) did take place all according to God's design and governed by the Angelic Host, containig many billions of galaxies and trillions of star systems. There are so many parmeters and factors making our planet just right to higher plants and animals and human beings. We are not animals but are a higher order of creation; man was created whole and entire. We are descendents of Adam & Eve, the human race is a fallen race. There is a higher order of intellectual beings than us and these are the Angels - pure spirits. The reality of Lucifer and the fallen angels is real. Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh; is the Son of God - is God Incarnate. And there is no other Name under heaven for which man can be saved. Heaven is real and so is Hell. Everyone is involved in this spiritual warfare. This one life determines our eternal destiny. The full Catholic Bible (the Douay Rheims) is true history (and the Church is the infallible interpreter of Divine Revelation. Christianity is the one and only true Religion given to us by God, and the only true Christianity is the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

I'm leaving this forum again for sometime. Goodbye
I will return in the future just to give a little treatise on true Psychology, and another on cosmology and the meaning of life.
Last edited by Grand Inquisitor on Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Marsoups
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:57 pm


I agree on giving rights to people for euthanasia, you are preaching to the converted.

Something like it would need to be carefully controlled though by government.

It will need the person who is experiencing the discomfort to agree, and at least two or three closest of kin to all agree.

Also they need to be very clear on whether their illness is treatable and room for a possible better life and all of that.

I can't see why people should be forced to undergo suffering in situations where there is nothing anybody can do and it is the will of the person and close loved ones.
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


If you let God do the driving, sooner or later, you will end up in the back of a semi-trailer!

As part of a social experiment, I banned myself from using the internet yesterday for a whole 24 hours. (Let me remind you as well as being a normal adult human being, I am a legitimate business owner and a head tenant.) I found I could do pretty much everything I would usually do, pretty much just as easily the "old fashioned" way, either by going there in person or via the phone. Conclusion, Gen Y not necessary!

As I told you, I do not come to your church and talk about Atheism and Buddhism, or Psytrance, aeroplanes, the internet or the creation of the universe (...it took a little bit longer than 7 days... (in fact, and here's the controversial bit, (in this thread in particular, so all you religious and euthanasia fanatics listen up,) it is still being created. Right now on Earth! It's called evolution. In fact, we all have our own personal evolution. I'll show you my tatts as proof that I have a past and evolved)). Now you made your point, shut the fuck up!
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Pete_Paranoid wrote :
As part of a social experiment, I banned myself from using the internet yesterday for a whole 24 hours. (Let me remind you as well as being a normal adult human being, I am a legitimate business owner and a head tenant.) I found I could do pretty much everything I would usually do, pretty much just as easily the "old fashioned" way, either by going there in person or via the phone. Conclusion, Gen Y not necessary!


Here's an experiment for today then: lock yourself in a room with no internet between the hours of 7.30am and 6pm (to simulate what it would like to have a job which you have to travel to, stay at all day, then travel home from) with no internet. Don't make any personal phone calls or send any sms's. Let me know how you go....
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


venatrix wrote :
Pete_Paranoid wrote :
As part of a social experiment, I banned myself from using the internet yesterday for a whole 24 hours. (Let me remind you as well as being a normal adult human being, I am a legitimate business owner and a head tenant.) I found I could do pretty much everything I would usually do, pretty much just as easily the "old fashioned" way, either by going there in person or via the phone. Conclusion, Gen Y not necessary!


Here's an experiment for today then: lock yourself in a room with no internet between the hours of 7.30am and 6pm (to simulate what it would like to have a job which you have to travel to, stay at all day, then travel home from) with no internet. Don't make any personal phone calls or send any sms's. Let me know how you go....


http://www.australiens.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16811

Triple troll!
:shock:
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


Marsoups wrote :
I agree on giving rights to people for euthanasia, you are preaching to the converted.

Something like it would need to be carefully controlled though by government.

It will need the person who is experiencing the discomfort to agree, and at least two or three closest of kin to all agree.

Also they need to be very clear on whether their illness is treatable and room for a possible better life and all of that.

I can't see why people should be forced to undergo suffering in situations where there is nothing anybody can do and it is the will of the person and close loved ones.


Where did you get that load of bollocks from ...WikiLeaks?
30 posts Page 1 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests