TV channel to broadcast assisted suicide

[Jiro]

The links I gave were from Disabled people speaking out for themselves.

Not Dead Yet is an entirely secular disabled rights movement. It has nothing to do with religion. Why don't you people just read the links I provided.

Look.... "Not Dead Yet" agenda has NOTHING to do with terminally-ill patient. For the love of God - please please please listen to me very carefully.

1. Euthanasia IS ILLEGAL in USA.
2. Euthanasia and Assisted-Suicide ARE NOT SAME THING
3. Only 3 states (correct me if I'm wrong) in America legalized PAS.
4. This thread is about TERMINALLY-ILL patients.... not people with disability... not people with severe depression... not people with whatever. This thread is about allowing the option of assisted-suicide for those with few months left to live.
4. Do you FULLY understand the PAS - Physician-Assisted Suicide Acts? because methinks you do not.

I will enlighten you with info from Oregon government site regarding "Death with Dignity"

Q: Who can participate in the Act?

A: The law states that, in order to participate, a patient must be:
1) 18 years of age or older,
2) a resident of Oregon,
3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and
4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months.

It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met.

Q: Can a patient rescind a request to participate in the Act?

A: Yes, a patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate.

Q: Can a patient's family members request participation in the Act on behalf of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient is comatose)?

A: No. The law requires that the patient ask to participate voluntarily on his or her own behalf.

Q: Does the Act allow euthanasia?

A: No. Euthanasia is a different procedure for hastening death. In euthanasia, a doctor injects a patient with a lethal dosage of medication. In the Act, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient - not the doctor - administers the medication. Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the US, including Oregon. The Act has been legal in Oregon since November 1997.

Q: Can someone who doesn't live in Oregon participate in the Act?

A: No. Only patients who establish that they are residents of Oregon can participate if they meet certain criteria.

Q: What is the Department of Human Services' opinion of the Act?

A: The Act was a citizen's initiative, enacted because a majority of voting Oregonians believed that persons afflicted with certain terminal illnesses should have the legal right to hasten their deaths. The role of the Department of Human Services is to collect data on participation in the Act and issue an annual report. These data are important to parties on both sides of the issue. Our position is a neutral one, and we offer no opinions about the law.

I hope this post has clarified everything for you. I hope you understand that our PAS law in USA has NOTHING to do with people with disability and "Not Dead Yet."

Try to remember the criteria in order to qualify for assisted-suicide.... YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE MENTALLY-COMPETENT TO REQUEST FOR IT and YOU HAVE 6 MONTHS LEFT TO LIVE. The ONLY person who can terminate oneself is by his/her own hand injecting the lethal dosage of drug - NOT doctors. NOT anybody else UNLESS that person request a specific person to do it for him/her.

You and "Not Dead Yet" group have NOTHING to worry about this "Death with Dignity" Act because people with disability must have UP TO 6 months left to live and they must be MENTALLY-COMPETENT to request for it. Under PAS law - nobody (not your parents, grandparents, lawyer, anybody) cannot request for assisted-suicide except the patient himself.

Please answer this question for me because you have not answered anybody's question. Do you understand better now about our American law on assisted-suicide act? yes or no?

 

[Jiro]

The fight for the right to die

In 1992, Sue Rodriguez forced the right-to-die debate into the spotlight in Canada. In a video statement played to members of Parliament, the Victoria woman, diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991, asked lawmakers to change the law banning assisted suicide.

"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" she said.

The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled against Rodriguez, but her struggle galvanized the public. Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an anonymous doctor.

What is the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia?

Assisted suicide has occurred when a person - typically someone suffering from an incurable illness or chronic intense pain - intentionally kills himself with the help of another individual.

For example, a doctor may prescribe drugs with the understanding that the patient plans to use them to overdose fatally. Or a doctor may insert an intravenous needle into the arm of a patient, who then pushes a switch to trigger a fatal injection.

Assisted suicide differs from euthanasia, when someone other than the patient ends the patient's life as painlessly as possible out of mercy.

Euthanasia may be active, such as when a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient. It can also be passive, in cases where a physician doesn't resuscitate a patient whose heart has stopped. Or it can happen when a doctor removes life-support equipment.

Mind you - Euthanasia in USA is ILLEGAL so I don't know why you're throwing a hissy fit at us. Netherlands & Belgium legalized euthanasia so you should be mad at them. This scares me because apparently - a few European countries are allowing doctors to judge the fate of patients' life - whether or not to euthanize. America would NEVER allow that.

I hope you now understand the difference between assisted-suicide and euthanasia.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Look.... "Not Dead Yet" agenda has NOTHING to do with terminally-ill patient. For the love of God - please please please listen to me very carefully.

1. Euthanasia IS ILLEGAL in USA.
2. Euthanasia and Assisted-Suicide ARE NOT SAME THING
3. Only 3 states (correct me if I'm wrong) in America legalized PAS.
4. This thread is about TERMINALLY-ILL patients.... not people with disability... not people with severe depression... not people with whatever. This thread is about allowing the option of assisted-suicide for those with few months left to live.
4. Do you FULLY understand the PAS - Physician-Assisted Suicide Acts? because methinks you do not.

I will enlighten you with info from Oregon government site regarding "Death with Dignity"















I hope this post has clarified everything for you. I hope you understand that our PAS law in USA has NOTHING to do with people with disability and "Not Dead Yet."

Try to remember the criteria in order to qualify for assisted-suicide.... YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE MENTALLY-COMPETENT TO REQUEST FOR IT and YOU HAVE 6 MONTHS LEFT TO LIVE. The ONLY person who can terminate oneself is by his/her own hand injecting the lethal dosage of drug - NOT doctors. NOT anybody else UNLESS that person request a specific person to do it for him/her.

You and "Not Dead Yet" group have NOTHING to worry about this "Death with Dignity" Act because people with disability must have UP TO 6 months left to live and they must be MENTALLY-COMPETENT to request for it. Under PAS law - nobody (not your parents, grandparents, lawyer, anybody) cannot request for assisted-suicide except the patient himself.

Please answer this question for me because you have not answered anybody's question. Do you understand better now about our American law on assisted-suicide act? yes or no?

The fight for the right to die

Thank you, Jiro. That was informative.

 

[Jiro]

Thank you, Jiro. That was informative.

 

[Bottesini]

I am never moving to the Netherlands or Belgium.

 

[Hear Again]

Yes it does actually, because if assistive suicide becomes legal it's possible for people to be cohered into it instead of recieving the help they need. It has nothing to do with moral superiority and EVERYTHING to do with basic human rights.

Plus you can't change your mind if someone helps you kill yourself. Sometimes seriously disabled people DO change their minds and were glad that they weren't alowed to die.

If someone who wasn't disabled wanted to kill themselves would you help them? Why should the disabled and terminally ill be any differant.

again, we're talking about people who are terminally ill -- not disabled.

when someone is terminally ill, the most important thing they need are others who respect their right to die.

a family member who takes that right away from them is acting purely out of selfishness.

 

[Hear Again]

dreama,

why are you continuing to confuse the issue of a terminally ill patient's right to die with those who have a severe disability? the two are completely unrelated.

 

[Grummer]

Oh come on guys! Just read through the werd-weird thing
It's teenage slang-

Transition:
Yes, Sir > Affirmative > Yes > Yeah > Yup > Word > Werd > wUUuuRd > ???

off topic, but yup teenagers enjoys the mind-fuck talks for goodness knows what, could be a reflection of the 'melting education' of the generation?

back on topic, dreama, if someone WANTS to die from the worse case of illness and they get denied that choice to slip away into peace -death- the inevitable, then we are doing the crime against the sick. On the other hand, Disability is a form of sickness in which it stem from a particular kind of maltreatment from society in which they dont let us live to the fullest. However to extend the suffering because 'we tell them when they can die' is cruel as well? it is not?
This is not different because these ruling is based on the premise that they can only do what we assume, that there is one reality, no adjustments, no respect for people to make own choices. If you studied Disability studies this is exactly what 'rights' centres on, now on that account of rights, the right to die is not much different to right to choose how we live?

i leave it here, this topic is interesting but can also become a sore boil on the bum if it just revolves around disability, and death, as does euthansia and PAS all are related but at same time all are NOT mutually inclusive, they are all distincted for real good reasons as all is discussed above.

 

[jillio]

Yes it does actually, because if assistive suicide becomes legal it's possible for people to be cohered into it instead of recieving the help they need. It has nothing to do with moral superiority and EVERYTHING to do with basic human rights.

Plus you can't change your mind if someone helps you kill yourself. Sometimes seriously disabled people DO change their minds and were glad that they weren't alowed to die.

If someone who wasn't disabled wanted to kill themselves would you help them? Why should the disabled and terminally ill be any differant.

If you are so concerned about basic human rights, what about an individual's right to determine how they wish to deal with a fatal illness? That is the most fundamental of all rights. You, in effect, are proposing that we all abdicate our rights to self determinination to some entity known as "the state". You logic removes basic human rights, it doesn't protect them.:roll: You claim to be supportive of human rights, and then in the next breath, propose legislation that removes the right to self determination. Your claim to be supportive of human rights is nothing more than a catch phrase you use to attempt to make yourself feel noble when, in fact, all you are doing is attempting toremove the rights of others to believe as they choose. You don't want to protect human rights, you want to force your beliefs on others. There is absolutely nothing noble about that.

 

[Babyblue]

I see nothing wrong with PAS.
We already have the right to refuse medical treatment that can possibly cause death.

I feel a person with a terminal illness have a right to choose to die. I know I would not want to suffer a painful death.

 

[naisho]

Come on guys, this is going to turn into another locked topic during the period each contender awaits the next post with bated breath.

Just need to address dreama more politely, she probably felt offended for people not regarding her input seriously - I would too, if I had people ganging up on me that I felt I was an one man army to reply to all that.

She stated that her kin was related to an incident similar to jillio's original news report about assisted suicide, then everyone kind of (no offense) veered offside to disagree with how she handled the situation and how she was actually doing more harm, disprove of the idea she perceived of the PAS. Assisted suicide is an issue of bereavement for the affected to deal with, it is a hard thing for anyone. Challenging them for what they think; especially if what they thought was right - is often not the correct approach.

It's the past, she's moved on from that, perhaps she learned a thing new or two - but keeping up on deliberately railing her with "you are wrong, come on and take this" is only going to cause more retaliation in her defense or personality. In the end, no good will come from the discussion other than perhaps a member withdrawing from the forum or future talk within our already small but growing community. You may be right - but what's the purpose? Just to prove him/her wrong?

 

[jillio]

Come on guys, this is going to turn into another locked topic during the period each contender awaits the next post with bated breath.

Just need to address dreama more politely, she probably felt offended for people not regarding her input seriously - I would too, if I had people ganging up on me that I felt I was an one man army to reply to all that.

She stated that her kin was related to an incident similar to jillio's original news report about assisted suicide, then everyone kind of (no offense) veered offside to disagree with how she handled the situation and how she was actually doing more harm, disprove of the idea she perceived of the PAS. Assisted suicide is an issue of bereavement for the affected to deal with, it is a hard thing for anyone. Challenging them for what they think; especially if what they thought was right - is often not the correct approach.

It's the past, she's moved on from that, perhaps she learned a thing new or two - but keeping up on deliberately railing her with "you are wrong, come on and take this" is only going to cause more retaliation in her defense or personality. In the end, no good will come from the discussion other than perhaps a member withdrawing from the forum or future talk within our already small but growing community. You may be right - but what's the purpose? Just to prove him/her wrong?

We are not challenging Dreama on her beliefs. We are challenging her on her confusion regarding euthanasia and PAS. We are challenging her on her lack of knowledge regarding the stipulations that must be fulfilled regarding PAS, and the limitations imposed. We are challenging her on her confusion between disability and terminal illness. And we are challenging her on her confusion between support of human rights, and denial of human rights.

 

[dreama]

Here is another NON RELIGIOUS link I've found. I thought I would share it with people:

The people most often offered as candidates for "needing" assistance in suicide include those in severe pain, those with diminished mental capacity, and those needing long-term or expensive medical care. The greatest threat to individual rights arises from the simple fact that it is too easy to make their "consent" a charade. These people are less likely to be able to give genuine consent, and are all disproportionally subject to the control of others.

Libertarians for Life - On Assisted Suicide

 

[Daredevel7]

Here is another NON RELIGIOUS link I've found. I thought I would share it with people:




Libertarians for Life - On Assisted Suicide

This is the way I see it..

Which has a higher chance:

A terminally ill person who is in pain really wanting PAS
or
a terminally ill person who is in pain who was coerced into wanting PAS?

Not only that, which is worse:

Dying 4 months earlier
or
Suffering for 4 months?

 

[Jiro]

Here is another NON RELIGIOUS link I've found. I thought I would share it with people:

Libertarians for Life - On Assisted Suicide

unfortunately.... the concern raised by Libertarians for Life is UNFOUNDED and UNTRUE. Again - please refer to my previous post regarding PAS policy. In your post - you speak of patients with DIMINISHED MENTAL CAPACITY and leaving the control of others to request for assisted suicide... here's the answer that will make you feel better -

Q: Who can participate in the Act?

A: The law states that, in order to participate, a patient must be:
1) 18 years of age or older,
2) a resident of Oregon,
3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and
4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months.

It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met.

Q: Can a patient's family members request participation in the Act on behalf of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient is comatose)?

A: No. The law requires that the patient ask to participate voluntarily on his or her own behalf.

nice try but sorry. epic fail.

 

[BradB08]

Good job, jiro. You've certainly owned dreama over and over.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Good job, jiro. You've certainly owned dreama over and over.

 

[Jiro]

 

[Grummer]

didnt it occured to any of you especially Jiro and Jillio, that just maybe you are bashing down 'alternative reality' as Dreama cherish that value. Even thought her value (Dreama's) seems grossly erroneous or mislead, did you actually realise that you are in fact, upholding the 'NORMS' in thinking about death and dyiny while making distinctions by abiding to the 'facts'. To expand on this abit further, 'facts' are also socially constructed and every 'facts' are never politically neutral , ever.
Now, to put this in clearer 'terms', in relation to the very acts we visit, participate in this forum which contains many controversial topics such as sign language, cochlear implants, various flavours of mainstreaming/side streaming education. Within these areas - havent you even noticed you are also (if you are 'against CI, strongly or mildly, it matter not) maintaining an alternative view which the majority of hearing people have great difficulty to understand that perspective of life without need of oralism.
this is what was happening here, you all had great difficulty to understand this other perspective, it is exactly the same as trying to get Cloggy to understand the significance of sign langauge, and the potentionally real problems in mainstreams affecting poersonality, self esteem, and the how far is effectiveness of CI and the disabiling effect of being medicalised as a persona. This trouble continues even so if Jillio might say 'read this' prove this, and even if the articles are Well established , soundly argued (in Jillo's mind) people like Cloggy STILLS fails to understands.
I can actually see it, it is no different (the inability to submerse fully into another perspective), its like we might HAVE the 'correct understanding of the legality' is parrallel to how parents might understand the potential problems if a deaf child does not have English or put further no have oral/listening skills to Function' er, in a convoluting way, legality is confused with facts, darn it i mean to say legality of medicine Might actually be so flawed but yet so well protected in the Law and in the way how society functions these laws, this includes observing it.

Sorry this is kind of hard to explain (real tired here) but i hope you get my drift there but that's one, also there is another observation i made, which is going to cause lots of people here spew, that I have always suspected that many d/Deaf people are somewhat obsessed with maintaining correct observations of general knowledge as a way of self=affirming oursevles to be 'normal' to push out some kind of childhood fears that 'we are not'. its like a lifelong habit to get over the hurt and that strive to keep up or play 'catch up' with the hearing world?
geez i think i said enough at this 'off topic point' however the whole point is if we're going to be 'open minded' or to choose the paths on pretending to be, then its kind of timingly point i had to raise just so to make us aware of it. Dreamas POV might seem wrong, but in this area of life and death, id rather not say it because indeed it is the unknown (after death) and for myself I'd respect who/whatever is out there and say nothing, just be the best as i can be is all i can say.
cheers

 

[Hear Again]

those of us who disagree with dreama are trying to show her that she is confusing two separate issues that have no relation to one another -- PAS and people with severe disabilities and/or depression.