Originally posted by RRokkyy
Originally posted by Dock9
Generally speaking, most people don't automatically consider submitting an application seeking permission to die
This is not correct.
Most people or many do submit an application to die.
However it is routinely turned down.
In the US it is nearly impossible to obtain the necessary drug,Nembutal,from any medical source. The only exceptions are 3 states where if you are on
your deathbed with a few months to live you might get it.
[edit on 31-3-2010 by RRokkyy]
I think we all know and understand what you're saying
(please note: I wrote 'generally speaking, most people
don't automatically consider submitting an application
permission to die' )
In any event, not everyone resides in the US. I currently reside in Australia, for example, which reportedly has included websites which discuss
euthanasia -- on the 'banned' list. If even mere perusal is banned, imagine how much chance Australians have of 'seeking permission to die'
In fact, euthanasia is treated in Australia in pretty much the way the Roman church regarded heretics, if the media's to be believed
For example, recently, a number of ageing individuals were charged, in relation to euthanasia
What had they done 'wrong' ? Well, reportedly, these retired bank-managers, professors, educators, police officers, public-servants etc. had
formed a group comitted to investigating means via which they could ... if they chose ... end their lives. Say, if they learned they had a terminal
condition or whatever. They all had their reasons for not wanting to 'drag on'. Their prerogitive, right ?
They spent weekends on a rural property owned by one of the group and immersed themselves in investigation and experimentation -- built their own
science-lab --- and conducted experiments in order to produce something akin to Nembutal
They are tax paying senior citizens of good repute. Own their homes, owe nothing to anyone. Their only foray on the wild side, apparently, is their
'irrational' conviction about not wanting their lives to be extended against their wishes. How bloody dare they, huh ?
The Minister for Ageing is aged about 30. I'm not quite sure why he was appointed to that office. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it ?
Anyway, the gang of senior citizens was rounded up and charged with various offences. So apparently it's some sort of crime
to imagine you
have any say in how or when you'll die !
At around the same point in time, the non-commercial tv channel held a public round-table, televised, and attended by selected members of the public,
the esteemed young Minister for Ageing, various 'experts', etc.
It's surprising just how articulate the average person actually is. Very impressive. And from memory, it would appear that at least 50% of the
general public agrees with the idea of people being free to determine if they should live or die. In fact, that percentage could have been
considerably higher, but I'm choosing here to opt on the side of conservatism
There were a couple of stand-out moments within that show, my favourite being the 50-to-60s woman who'd travelled to Mexico to buy a version of the
Nembutal-type drug -- for herself and friends (not long afterwards, Aussies were charged for bringing the drug into Australia. Maybe suicide potions
are now included in the fake War On Drugs ? )
The woman in question said the Nembutal-type stuff can be purchased for a fraction of the US price and that it can be arranged for it to be purchased
from Mexican veterinarians. So this is what's it's come to. If you're a tax-paying Aussie, your politicians can fly all over the world and
provide very nicely for themselves and their families and friends (health-wise and other) on the Aussie tax-dollar. But if you're a mere voter, you
have to sneak over the oceans to a Mexican vet in order to buy something that will ease you into death ... after which you must secrete it in a bodily
orifice like a criminal -- usually when you're already suffering a terminal condition and are 50+ years old. What a scandal, huh ? What a bloody
But the government won't object to your sons, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc. DYING (and dying young and heathly to boot) -- no, no objections to
that sort of death --- as long as you're dying overseas, for Uncle Sam and Israel etc.
The televised debate resulted in some chuckles --- when the senior-aged woman who'd had to sneak drugs into Australia in a bodily orifice ripped
open her blouse and bared her upper chest at the sapling who is our young Minister for Ageing. ' Look at this ! ' she spat (yes, she despised him
and all he professes to stand for ) ' Look at THIS ! '
And, tattooed across her chest was the instruction, ' DO NOT REVIVE '. Or maybe it was ' Do Not Resuscitate '. (it was a hand-done tattoo)
The woman said she had terminal cancer which was in remission at the moment. She'd bought the death-drugs in Mexico because they are illegal in
Australia. She said that so far, doctors had resuscitated her twice already, against her wishes. Hence the tattoo on her chest. She said doctors
would not be able to claim they had not seen it if they attempted to resuscitate her at some future time. And if they DID resuscitage her, she said
(I think) she would kill and/or sue them. Something like that (she was furious)
It was during the same televised debate that members of the group who were experimenting in order to produce the death-drug, spoke up, honestly and
eloquently. Shortly afterwards, they were arrested
So, if you wish to end your life in Australia ... too bad. The young and fit Minister for Ageing doesn't believe you have the right to make that
decision. You'll have to lie in a nappy in a care-home, your breath stinking, your body a hated burden, and wait until you 'die naturally'.
You family and friends will have to psyche themselves up and visit you out of sense of pity and duty. And you'll have to pretend you don't notice
the expressions of shock and revulsion when they see you there, looking a travesty of your old self, connected to wires and tubes, reliant on
strangers, nurses and doctors. Or a variation of same. Until, finally, your body calls it quits. Only THEN, and not UNTIL then, are you allowed to
end what is laughingly referred to as 'YOUR
If it's YOUR
life, then it's yours to end any time you please --- or should be
People have said that others shouldn't really be able to end their 'own life' if it 'impacts negatively on others'
Hey ! We ALL impact negatively on others, much of the time.
We impact 'negatively on others' when we load up with drink and drugs and smash our car into an oncoming car filled with a family of strangers. Or
when we die on a skiing, or deep sea diving holiday. Or when we have a stroke, or become quadruplegic. etc. etc. etc.
will have to get over it if/when we die. Death is part of life. People have to stop denying that THEY and everyone else is GOING
TO DIE ANYWAY ! Death and dying are NOT preventable diseases !
Death is not 'an unfortunate accident' that only strikes a few. Death is as real and common as birth, as sliced bread
'Others' are not empowered to sit in judgement and 'decide' if suicide or euthanasis 'should be allowed'
It has nothing to DO with 'other people'
[edit on 1-4-2010 by Dock9]