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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WEOPPOSEDECEPTION
Yeah, they'll just give it out indiscrimatingly to anyone who asks, it will be all over the streets, oh my GAWD!


Well sure, any drug addict would fall for it as being vodka. Would this truly be the solution to solve all of humanity's problems? Maybe. Maybe not.

I would take a drink of that stuff, just before if I was about to die from a horrible torture. I would be like ha! I'm already dead 2 minutes ago, and you thought I was still alive. Terrorists will be all over this stuff, to escape a painful death, or torture if they are kept hostage.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wolfmanjack
 


I agree so tell me where I pointed to ethical reasons based on faith? If you can point out where I brought faith or as you state religion into this discussion I will happily agree that you are right and I am wrong.

I just am not one to jump on the band wagon of being in agreement with suicide.


I do not care to dictate what others do as so many on this board are. But at the same time this whole dictation works in two ways. If the doctor is not in agreement with assisting in suicide why should they be forced to go against the oath they have taken to do harm (help them die). I understand that forcing the person to live is not much better either (hence my saying I am not sure where I stand on the issue) but helping someone to die is certainly causing them harm.

Personally I think people should be given medication that can overcome pain so that they can be around family. I would rather be around my family for as long as I could even if in pain than to remove myself from them before my time.

Where everyone is getting I am against this when I said I am not sure where I stand is beyond me. Where you got the idea that I was coming from a faith or religious based angle is also beyond me, considering that nowhere in my post did I mention either.

Raist



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by deadline527
 


*sigh*

Again I am not saying I wish to dictate anyone’s life. Again I did not even say I was against this issue.

I said that I am not sure where I stand on this and gave a few reasons for that.

To clear things up for you and everyone else just one more time though. Nowhere did I mention faith or religion. Nowhere did I mention this should not happen or should be outlawed. Nowhere did I state I wanted any control over your life or anyone else’s. Please go back and reread what I wrote. I clearly stated I am unsure of my stance on this, just the same as I was in my ethics class.

Though in the ethics class clearly going against your oath as a doctor and doing harm makes such a thing unethical. That does not mean that it is wrong but perhaps that oath might be outdated.

Also as another poster said again. When did the medical field go from saving life to ending it?


I agree though that doctors should try to detour the patient from such methods. For the record my personal thought is that suicide is somehow wrong. I also feel it is wrong to force someone to suffer in life. I do not though wish to take that option from people if they so chose it. Again I am unsure of where I really stand on this issue.


Raist



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I am with you Raist, but for different reasons. I am pretty sure that if I was living in agony all day every day almost to the point if insanity I would want to end it and do it as easily and painlessly as possible.
On the other hand, if somebody I cared for was in the same situation, I would try and find alternatives and make them as comfortable as possible in order to keep them alive for purely selfish reasons.

To look at it another way though. If you were to hit an animal with a car and it was clearly in pain, the ‘humane’ thing to do is ‘put it out of its misery’. So if you loved somebody enough, you would let them do it themselves or in some cases help them. This then comes to another matter. If the person wishing to die was physically incapable does it become murder if you help and does it make a difference if you were a doctor or a relative?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
If this bill gets passed I can't express just how wonderful it will be!
Everyone should have the right to a peaceful death. Why should the terminally ill be forced to go to countries such as Mexico so they can make their own lethal cocktails?

We need something like this to happen in the USA.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


Right now technically it does become murder by law.

I agree though about the letting someone suffer though as that was my other dilemma. I was sort of the opposite as you. I would rather suffer through it and be with my family. But I also think I might rather see them “put to rest” than to suffer.

I really do not think I could make such a call. I fought back and forth on both sides of this issue in my ethics class and never came to an ultimate decision myself. I have lost many a loved one’s some even through the act of suicide. I still do not know where I stand on the issue. Maybe the closeness of the act itself has made such a decision difficult as I tend to think of it as a selfish thing to do in most cases. But I certainly would not remove the option from others if that is their choice. I just know I could not make such a choice for them and I am not sure how I would react to being asked to help either.


Raist



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kj6754
 


It is in the USA. This exact drug and system. from what I can tell only in Oregon.

Raist,
yes. sure it is murder now, but I wnder if this bill will make allowances for the situation of those inable to do it. say they can drink it, but cannot prepare the drink. oes that make the assisting part a murderer or accessory?

Another potential dilema, is for elderly people. there may be cases where one elderly peson gts 'approval' from the doctor, but their partner decides to share the drink to prevent lonltness. I couldn't blame them but is shows the need for it to be adminstered under close supervision.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Some of the comments in this thread are so silly, such as "what if someone put it in other peoples drinks!!!"

This is a prescription drug, and there are LOTS of prescription drugs that can kill someone in large doses. People suffering from a terminal illness usually get plenty of prescription drugs anyway, they should be able to stock up and if they wanted they could combine drugs to achieve the same effect (just add a plastic bag, one only needs to induce a state of unconsciousness, not death). And even oral barbituates are NOT guaranteed to kill in an hour, they cause unconsciousness fast but sometimes the deaths drag out for up to 24 hours. Plastic bags make a huge difference.

In the case of OR, its a lengthy ordeal, must be diagnosed as terminal and expected to die within 6 months by 2 doctors I believe, and they must be a resident of Oregon for 6 months.

But one VERY interesting thing has come up since Oregon enacted that law. Many of the doctors surveyed have said they have become MORE concerned and tried to be come more educated on PAIN MANAGEMENT because they don't want to deal with the ugly bit of patients asking for a euthanasia script. Imagine that, suddenly pain prevention became a big priority.

I also read the main lobbying group fighting this was working on behalf of disabled people. I guess they worry that if some poor person suffering an excrutiating death from bone cancer were to be allowed this option, then the next thing ya know we would all go crazy and start snuffing out every disabled person in sight.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


Thanks Sonya,
As always very inciteful and well though out. I was hoping someone would give us some perspective on the Oregon laws.
It is great to hear that they have re prioritised the pain management for the patients. I certainly hope that becomes the case here.

Not to put a negative on it though, but I would imagine there are doctors who for the right money will shortcut the requirements. I wonder how many of those who are prescribed this have the same 2 doctors?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Not to put a negative on it though, but I would imagine there are doctors who for the right money will shortcut the requirements. I wonder how many of those who are prescribed this have the same 2 doctors?


I seriously doubt that, for two reasons. First of all I am quite certain if a doctor were offered a "bribe" they would be smart enough to think they were being set up and would soon face criminal prosecution.

Secondly there would be NO need for it. As stated there are plenty of drugs that can cause unconsciousness or death. Most terminally ill patients already receive one or more pain killers filled on a monthly basis. If they claim they have problems sleeping, or with anxiety they can add more strong drugs to the list. Sheesh if they take a good sized dog to the vet and claim the dog is having seizures they will soon walk away with a big bottle of phenobarbital. There are so many ways to go about it.

The euthanasia drug is symbolic more than anything, the same effect could be achieved in many other ways.

I recall reading the reports on the specific number of deaths over a few years, it was really low. Most that had the euthanasia perscription filled never used it. They just wanted it as a backup plan.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shrukin89
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?


I have seen a few of similar posts. Secobarbital is a drug that can be perscribed already. They are just giveing you a dose big enough to kill you. Like any perscription drug, you can get it on the black market. People can get it now and random people aren't dying in a bar. Ever heard of Seconal, used to treat insomnia? I guess we will have to worry about insomniacs killing random bar-goers too.

Edit: I guess someone made the point already.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by n0tsan3]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
They should this use this stuff to deal with the homeless and immigration problems just put it in a whisky bottle and hand it out. That's probably the only moral use for it because suicide isn't and is just a way out for cowards.

I'd test it on a dog before I took it anyway it could be painful or something but really anyone who kills themselves will end up in Hell so it should stay Illegal



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wolfmanjack
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]

you are right, no one should be able to tell you what to do with your own life; i don't think very many people will argue that, but the thead topic is anything but simple. When doctors themselves start dealing out death it opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't anyone agree.
"First, do no harm." i know u don't like that, but there it is. i think it's important. I think an alternative bill should be made that allows the patient to off theirself, and to be assisted by a family member if need be, or someone else as per written instruction, and there are ways to accomplish this just as easily as that drink, and will still work all the time. I guess i totally understand why a doctor is the most ideal route for some people though, man this issue is tougher than i thought, i see where u are coming from as well, so all i can say in conclusion is that it is not a simple subject. All i know for sure is that some form of assisted suicide should be legal, it just worries me putting it in the hands of SO MANY doctors....maybe a special degree or more specific schooling should be necessary. I would add a new class of drugs to the schedule, putting a new category of Type 0 drugs that always result in death, and requiring more training to prescribe them. what do u think?
with that being said, i still think the bill will pass. But i know a few doctors who will never prescribe that, and others who shouldn't be allowed to.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Enigma Publius]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Enigma Publius]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
In situations that extremely painful, when in the later stages of a terminal illness, this is merciful. This does not go against the oath of a doctor, as a physician's oath should also concern itself with the dignity, quality and experience of a life that is already ending. However, I'm really concerned that this may mean family members forcing or taking advantage of someone, who according to a court may not be of sound mind and body due to their illness and medication. It would have to be offered only in the most carefully defined circumstances, or it should never even be an option.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShamanatorI'd test it on a dog before I took it anyway it could be painful or something but really anyone who kills themselves will end up in Hell so it should stay Illegal


You worry the drug maybe painful huh? Sounds rather cowardly to me. It is also an extremely ignorant statement, obviously you know nothing about this topic or the drugs involved.

What you are suggesting is illegal, and for the record if someone such as yourself came anywhere near my dogs I would most certainly provide a solution for all of your concerns, and suicide methods would no longer be an issue for you.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
They should this use this stuff to deal with the homeless and immigration problems just put it in a whisky bottle and hand it out. That's probably the only moral use for it because suicide isn't and is just a way out for cowards.

I'd test it on a dog before I took it anyway it could be painful or something but really anyone who kills themselves will end up in Hell so it should stay Illegal


There is nothing moral about poor bashing in any way. Its reprehensible and primitive. The poorerst of the poor are to me, the only ones who truly represent humanity. They are the worlds majority citizen. Also, since our troubles contribute to our souls advancement and growth, they walk the path of KINGS, and represent the hightest levle of SPIRIT WITHIN. What you do unto them you do unto your Creator. Lack of sharing and compassion is the opposite of soul's growth, so the entire situation looks very poorly on us, and shows the poverty of our own souls.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
It's all part of the "Population Control" movement by our wonderful government. They want us all to die!! The government has said that the world would be a better place with only 10% of us left. Anybody that is disabled, old, sick, a criminal, or poor will become a target! We go to war for two reasons; to make money, and to kill off people. This new "Death Drink" is only the beginning. There's too many people in the world, and the government is sick and tired of paying for them.... Pretty sad...



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
They should this use this stuff to deal with the homeless and immigration problems just put it in a whisky bottle and hand it out. That's probably the only moral use for it because suicide isn't and is just a way out for cowards.

I'd test it on a dog before I took it anyway it could be painful or something but really anyone who kills themselves will end up in Hell so it should stay Illegal

that is exactly why i don't think doctors should be able to do this, at least not without special training and psychiatric evaluations and lie detector tests. I mean, if we don't believe that there are doctors here in the States, practicing doctors who think the same way he does, then we are fooling ourselves. it's scary. also, i never considered corrupt family members taking advantage, that is horrible, but it would happen, there are a lot of problems with this idea.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamanator
 


You are sick!!! You should be a member of our sick government!



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The government doesn't pay for anyone. We do. Society does. The government thinks it has the right to call its citizens money its own? I hear people talking about government handouts alot. Considering taxes exist, money that doesn't boomerang back into your town, your neighborhood and create civilized and caring alternatives for your world, is absolute highway robbery. This isn't about poor people, and the handicapped. This is to allow those who are in serious pain a more dignified way of ending their lives. It is not even suicide in my books, but an extension of hospice and treatment for an untreatable, agonizing condition. Not everyone will doing this willingly either, I might add. Many cling to life, and actually will not let go on their own, due to their family and unfinished business. My uncle stayed alive long enough to see his son married. Sometimes the terminal have to be told its okay to let go now, its okay, everyone loves you and is with you, but you don't have to carry the weight of the world on your shoulders anymore.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join