It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill would allow lethal drinks by prescription

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Bill would allow lethal drinks by prescription


www.news.com.au

DOCTORS will be able to prescribe lethal drinks for terminally ill Victorians if a controversial Bill passes through State Parliament.

Debate will resume tonight on a euthanasia Bill introduced by Upper House Greens MP Colleen Hartland in June.
If the Bill is successful, doctors will be able to prescribe a barbiturate - most likely Secobarbital - so patients suffering from terminal illness can take their own lives.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Personally I don’t know where to stand on this issue. Fortunately I have not been in the situation where I or a loved one has had to consider it.
It has been discussed and debated many times and people charged for assisting with the death of a loved one. Now we are considering legalising this. I can see merits to the system, but it would have to be very closely monitored with very strict guidelines. For me the patient would have to be terminally ill and in constant pain. Something like chronic depression would not be a valid reason.
On this matter though, with regards to the death penalty, if this product is humane and painless, why do they not use this instead of gas, injections and other potentially painful methods. Simply hand the condemned a glass of apple juice a ‘see ya later’


www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


I had sort of the same discussion in an ethics class about euthanasia. It was actually considered unethical according to the oath doctors take to perform such an act.

Though like you I am not sure where I stand on this. I would hate to see others suffer but in a way I also feel it is wrong to take their life even if they want it to end.


I wonder though if they have to drink it there at the doctor’s office/hospital or if they can take it home with them. If this drink is allowed to go into the public it could be pretty dangerous though to people who do not want die. I would imagine that this drink would be either without taste or have a pleasant taste, making it hard to notice if replaced or added to another’s drink. Also what if the clinically ill person is spiteful and uses it on someone else out of spite. Pain can cause people to do strange things, and the knowledge that you are dying can as well.

Raist



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Its a pretty damn simple situation..

What other people do to themselves is none of anyone else's Business.

A really good book on this issue is here. (You can read it online)
www.mcwilliams.com...
Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

It talks about CONSENSUAL CRIMES and how the far left/right, bible thumpers etc impose their values etc onto the rest of us.

Quite frankly i think it comes down to this.. If it isn't your body shut the hell up and let people decide for themselves what they are going to do. It isn't your right to dictate to others what they can and can do with their own body.

Edit..

Raist ..... LMAO mate.. There are plenty of things out in the world a person can kill themselves with.. Without having to resort to some drink. The advantage of having this drink is to make sure you have something that will do the job and not leave you as a vegetable or worse.

And the entire premise of unethical (first do no harm) is a joke. When in a lot of these cases not doing anything at all is doing more harm then doing something.






[edit on 19-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
In this time of over population bring on the suicide booths! They could always remove the horribly painful option.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Finally!

I think this bill is LONG overdue and people who are suffering should have a better way of going peacefully. If I was terinally ill and wanted to die, would you rather have me put a shotgun in my mouth OR drink a little cup of liquid? Although, I am curious as to the failure rate of this medication, and if it guarantees death in a certain amount of time.

Is it possible this medication will make it onto the black market? To be used in assassinations, suicides by non-terminally ill, and so on.

Hopefully they will pass a bill like this in the USA soon.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I remember a time when Jack Kevorkian was made out to be a criminal for doing the same thing, acting out of compassion. I'm totally for this. Who are we to dertermine if someone should or should not take their own life when they are terminally ill and in dire stress.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
This quote from the article should answer both Raist and Deadline527 (Apt name for this thread
)

The bitter-tasting drug is already used in Oregon, in the US, where terminally ill patients mix it with a large quantity of apple juice. Death takes up to an hour.


Raist,
It is bitter tasting so you would notice it.

DL,
Currently used in Oregon.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Hmm.. so death takes up to an hour?

What if you change your mind after drinking it? lol

I wonder if they have another chemical that is able to reverse the effects of this drug, or if its a guaranteed death once it passes your lips.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Seems lately that personal values and morality concerning life, whether medical or religious, have no place in society anymore, and are even being classified as illegal. We are ordering people by penalty of law to administer medicine that they know will kill fetuses, and ordering doctors by penalty of law to prescribe medicine that they know will be used to assist in suicides. When did the medical practice turn it's attention from saving lives to administering death? I don't think it is right.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I had no idea this was used in Oregon!

Never really thought to look into the method used for compassionate euthanasia.


I just have to know. WHAT is it anyone else's business if someone is "terminal enough" or in "enough pain" to warrant them taking their own life? And clinical depression not being good enough? How is it anyone else's business to decide if someone else is bad ENOUGH, to warrant wanting their own life to end? Another poster was right, it someone wants it done, there are many ways to go.

Shame we are livestock that belong to a government, so suicide is actually ILLEGAL.

Amazing. People will find a way if they want it bad enough.
I think that it would be a good idea to leave the decision to a patient, and their doctor, only.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
All I can think about is the euthanasia scene from Soylent Green. Seems like a peaceful way to go. Sip a beverage and sit back in a comfy chair while you watch a pretty landscape.

In all seriousness, I have always been in favor for euthanasia. After working in health care for a number of years and seen so many people suffer. It seems like a logical choice.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
No, make them suffer a horrible, miserable end of life. That's what god wants.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by wolfmanjack
 


I am well aware there are many ways a person can take their life or that of others. But my point was that aside from fetuses I can think of no other drug that is prescribed to specifically kill another.

As another poster brings up when did the medical field turns its attention away from saving life to ending life?

Just my opinion on the subject though.

Raist



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


If I am terminally ill and want to end my life, that is MY choice, and they should at least have a method that leaves less blood on the walls. If someone is in constant pain and suffering, where they know they are going to die from a terminal disease, they should be allowed to take their own life.

I am 100% in support of euthanasia and believe it should be the patients decision if they want to live or die. I am so sick of the government telling us we are not allowed to die - its MY body.

I do believe though that the doctors should do everything in their power to deter the patient from using such a method, but the option should be there.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
My dear gawd. I can see lots of people dying in bars, parties because of this. Would that make them think twice before giving something like that to a guy who is a alcoholic? Or giving that drink to somebody else at a party that you hate?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Yeah, they'll just give it out indiscrimatingly to anyone who asks, it will be all over the streets, oh my GAWD!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by wolfmanjack
 


I am well aware there are many ways a person can take their life or that of others. But my point was that aside from fetuses I can think of no other drug that is prescribed to specifically kill another.

As another poster brings up when did the medical field turns its attention away from saving life to ending life?

Just my opinion on the subject though.

Raist


Ok.. Then i will pose a question to you.

Why should you or anyone else dictate to others what they can and can not do to themselves?

As for the morality issue.. Thats a load of hogwash, Morality itself is subjective in nature and doesn't represent reality.

Case in point. Pot.. When those in power were trying to outlaw Pot they made up all kinds of MORAL reasons and BS about why it is bad. (Some still used today) All evidence indicates that Pot has far more benificial properties then negative ones. Up until the 1960's pot was used in hundreds of drugs etc that doctors prescribed for illness.

You don't need a belief in a god to have morals. For the most part most morals are nothing more then subjective control to keep the public in line.

Morals That are a joke because the majority do not follow them
Don't cheat
Don't lie (EVERYONE LIES!)
Don't break the law (EVERYONE BREAKS THE LAW ..You can not live in the US and not break a law)
Don't Do drugs.
Don't have anal sex

Don't do this dont do that etc etc etc..... In reality 90% of laws in effect have no social benefit. They only serve to limit people and control them.

Just do a search on google for stupid laws still on the books.
Here are just a couple from my state of california.

"Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship."

"It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale."

"Women may not drive in a house coat."

These are STILL LAWS !!!!!!!!!!!! ..

Our society is so worried about what other people should and shouldn't do they don't consider for one second whether or not they have the right to dictate to others what is right and wrong.

For more stupid laws go here
www.dumblaws.com...

It has all the US states and a lot of other countries stupid laws.

Edit..

I degrees .. My point is this.... Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell someone else what they can and can not do with their own body?

No one has the right to dictate to others what they can and can not do to themselves.


[edit on 19-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadline527
Hmm.. so death takes up to an hour?

What if you change your mind after drinking it? lol

I wonder if they have another chemical that is able to reverse the effects of this drug, or if its a guaranteed death once it passes your lips.


If the Barbiturate they use is Secobarbital, they are the same as "Reds" or horse tranquilizers that people use to take for fun.

They are short acting and you will start to feel light and get the nods in a few min. It just takes a longer time to start to slow down breathing and heart rate.

You would probably have 5 min at the most to freak out but then start to feel very good more and more and start to slow down till you fell asleep after 10 min.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Of course, this topic was bound to bring out the do-gooders who feel that euthanasia is immoral. It pains me to read the argument, as it smacks of utter ignorance of a truly "pro-life" position. If you naysayers honestly cared about life, you would understand that it is not simply the presence of life that matters, but the quality of that life. Preferring to let nature or your god take its course when an individual is suffering, particularly when that individual is a consenting adult who wishes to end their life, is reprehensible to me. How dare you (any of you--you know who you are) pretend to be the compassionate sector while you glorify life in and of itself, with apparently no pause for consideration of the quality of life.

Regarding my particular position in this matter: I feel no reason to prevent the assisted suicide of consenting individuals with terminal illness, provided there are safeguards to help prevent this product from reaching the mainstream (note: I am not under the illusion that such safeguards guarantee that this item remains exclusive to the intended individuals; anything humanly designed is susceptible to error).



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join