Wa. State Has 1st Death Under State's Assisted Suicide Law

sequoias said:
Well....it doesn't happen much. Oregon ONLY had 401 assisted suicides since their law was passed back in the 90's. It is VERY tough to get thru that to approve it. There is no reason to panic about that stuff. It ONLY applies to someone who is termitically sick and can't recover and has a few months to live....it may be considered with an approval from the family/doctors to give a go ahead. You are less likely to end up with assisted suicide than getting shot down in Detroit which has over 400 murders in ONE year.
Click to expand...

Read and learn.
Oregon Physician-Assisted Suicide: Theory vs. Practice
 
I am not against if people with serious dieases want to suicide, why should we keep them suffering?
 
kokonut said:
Oh, it's a slippery slope. Think of it as "gateway drug" kind of thing. It can lead to one thing after another.

You say there's "sufficient data"...? Show me.

Ah, the "insurers" are the problem? I see where this is goiing.
Click to expand...

The links are provided in post #53. And they include empirical data.
 
Jiro said:
ah. a theory. a theory that has already been shot down due to PAS's rigorous requirement :)
Click to expand...

In other words, a 100 percent guarantee that the state or federal govt won't see this as a cost saving measure? "Rigorous" does not mean infalliable nor does it mean something that will prevent changes into the future.

Yet, I'm talking about the current legal system which allows the possibility of a legal slippery slope starting with PAS to voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary euthanasia. Who says this will never happen? Are you guaranteeing 100% that the consent of individuals with mental illness, physical handicap, elderly, demented, homeless, and anyone else society deems “useless” will not be euthanized? A slippery slope is impossible in this case? And this has not happened elsewhere? :hmm:
 
shel90 said:
The links are provided in post #53. And they include empirical data.
Click to expand...

Uh, you're assuming they have adequate safeguards in avoiding this slippery slope? And this slippery slope hasn't happened elsewhere? :hmm:
 
a reply to kokonut's post

Wrong statistic used in reporting duration of professional relationship before death. Median is used in an attempt to purposely distort the facts. Additionally, time before death includes those deaths occurring as a result of natural disease process, not PAS deaths only.

Numbers used to report Rx written and filled: reported over a 6 year period in an attempt to make incidence appear to be inflated. Break down would be 44 Rx written per year; 28 Rx filled per year. Since each PAS requires an average of 3-4 prescriptions per patient, the actual number of patients being prescribed would be 11, and the actual number of prescriptions filled for patients would be 7. Additionally, just because a prescription was filled does not mean that it resulted in a completed PAS; however, the number of actual completed PAS was conveniently left out in an attempt to mislead and distort.

Time regarding onset of medication is missing critical information. Another intentional distortion. Likewise, the website suggested that an injection was used without any evidence of such. This is more than intentional distortion in an attempt to mislead…it is a blatant lie.

Even if an injection was used to administer the medication for a PAS does not automatically infer that it was administered by someone other than the patient. This is particularly true in the case of a patient who receiving TPN or a patient with a medication catheter in place. The patient is perfectly capable of self administration of a medication through a push injection in these cases. Failure to note this very relevant fact is again, just another intentional attempt to distort fact and mislead the reader.

Extensive use of anecdote without evidence to support it in any way.

This website has virtually no credibility regarding actual data and fact regarding PAS, and is, once again, nothing more than a collection of distortion and misrepresentation used in an attempt to promote a misguided personal agenda.
Click to expand...
 
kokonut said:
Uh, you're assuming they have adequate safeguards in avoiding this slippery slope? And this slippery slope hasn't happened elsewhere? :hmm:
Click to expand...

can you show me a case of this "slippery slope" then?
 
Jiro said:
can you show me a case of this "slippery slope" then?
Click to expand...

Jiro, you said and I quote, "ah. a theory. a theory that has already been shot down due to PAS's rigorous requirement."

Now, I'm asking you first, are you saying that this will never happen and it's a lock and a guarantee that this "slippery-slope" will not be realized into the future?
 
kokonut said:
Jiro, you said and I quote, "ah. a theory. a theory that has already been shot down due to PAS's rigorous requirement."

Now, I'm asking you first, are you saying that this will never happen and it's a lock and a guarantee that this "slippery-slope" will not be realized into the future?
Click to expand...

actually you're first since you're the one who posted about this in your post #54. So any documented case of this slippery-slope" incident?
 
Jiro said:
actually you're first since you're the one who posted about this in your post #54. So any documented case of this slippery-slope" incident?
Click to expand...

You said it was shot down. Are you sure about this since you were so confident that this is a fact..."shot down" ?
 
kokonut said:
You said it was shot down. Are you sure about this since you were so confident that this is a fact..."shot down" ?
Click to expand...

see post #68

so.... unable to show me any documented case of "slippery slope"?
 
Are you saying, yes, that this theory has been shot down and there is no chance of a slippery slope occuring into the future? So, a slippery slope won't occur as a result of PAS into the future? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice is all I'm asking.
 
kokonut said:
Are you saying, yes, that this theory has been shot down and there is no chance of a slippery slope occuring into the future? So, a slippery slope won't occur as a result of PAS into the future? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice is all I'm asking.
Click to expand...

I am asking for a case of this so-called slippery slope case that you've been crying about. Has anyone died under PAS because of this slippery slope? YES OR NO? Your answer to my question may be an answer to your question.
 
Uh, Jiro. I am asking for a clarification on your statement. Based on what you've said this is all I have to go on. It appears that you are in fact stating (i.e. "theory shot down") that a slippery slope will not happen, cannot happen, and not even possible in this PAS scenario. Ergo, "shot down."
 
kokonut said:
Uh, Jiro. I am asking for a clarification on your statement. Based on what you've said this is all I have to go on. It appears that you are in fact stating (i.e. "theory shot down") that a slippery slope will not happen, cannot happen, and not even possible in this PAS scenario. Ergo, "shot down."
Click to expand...

again..... your answer to my question may be an answer to your question. so by answering my question, you will get an answer to your question. :)

So since you posted a silly article with fallacious, flawed, and distorting statements in your post #54 about some slippery slope case... do you have any documented medical case that a patient has died under PAS thru slippery slope? again - the answer to this question may be an answer to your question :)
 
Jiro said:
So since you posted a silly article with fallacious, flawed, and distorting statements in your post #54 about some slippery slope case... do you have any documented medical case that a patient has died under PAS thru slippery slope? again - the answer to this question may be an answer to your question :)
Click to expand...

A non-answer isn't an answer. I will have to say that your answer is a "yes" that a slippery slope isn't possible (i.e. "theory shot down"). But are you attempting to back-peddle with a non-answer even though you have made it clear of your stance?
 
kokonut said:
A non-answer isn't an answer. I will have to say that your answer is a "yes" that a slippery slope isn't possible (i.e. "theory shot down"). But are you attempting to back-peddle with a non-answer even though you have made it clear of your stance?
Click to expand...

2 things -
1. unable to answer my question?
2. no response to my post #68?

pretty much sunk your own boat :hmm:

so let's assume it's either yes or no to your question. So any documented medical case that a patient has died under PAS thru slippery slope?
 
Back
Top