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

No. No boat has been sunk. You just need to think carefully is what I'm saying. You're making the claim that this slippery slope situation cannot, has not, and will not happen. Look around first. You're making the statement with the presumption that it wouldn't go any further (i.e. slippery slope) because "rigorous requirements" are in place. Now, tell me, requirements for PAS to take place will not get broader? For example, suppose an "euthanasia commission" wants to change their country's euthanasia law so that the elderly who are tired of living can be euthanized, even if they are not ill or suffering unbearably, would that be a slippery slope example? Or the possibility of offering euthanasia of a healthy woman whose husband is terminally ill just so they both can die together? Would this slippery slope include the cost saving perspective as well?

Again, Jiro. You've made a statement that this slippery slope is not possible for PAS. And, now, all of sudden you won't confirm nor deny this statement of yours by avoiding any clarification of your statement with a qualifying "yes" or "no" answer.

Now, think, review, and research this. Slippery slope is possible (and it has and continues to occur).
 
No. No boat has been sunk. You just need to think carefully is what I'm saying. You're making the claim that this slippery slope situation cannot, has not, and will not happen. Look around first. You're making the statement with the presumption that it wouldn't go any further (i.e. slippery slope) because "rigorous requirements" are in place. Now, tell me, requirements for PAS to take place will not get broader? For example, suppose an "euthanasia commission" wants to change their country's euthanasia law so that the elderly who are tired of living can be euthanized, even if they are not ill or suffering unbearably, would that be a slippery slope example? Or the possibility of offering euthanasia of a healthy woman whose husband is terminally ill just so they both can die together? Would this slippery slope include the cost saving perspective as well?

Again, Jiro. You've made a statement that this slippery slope is not possible for PAS. And, now, all of sudden you won't confirm nor deny this statement of yours by avoiding any clarification of your statement with a qualifying "yes" or "no" answer.

Now, think, review, and research this. Slippery slope is possible (and it has and continues to occur).

1. think review and research? hmmm.... *looking at your post #54 & #61* hmm.... yep. I think we both know who did not think, review, and research PAS case
2. no response to my post #68?? interesting....
3. PAS is not the same as euthanasia. not remotely similar at all!
4. The practice of euthanasia is OUTLAWED in America
5. It was rigorously strict enough and difficult enough to get PAS so the discussion of it being possibly broad is fallacious. It's as rare as a Secret Service agent going rogue and assassinating the President.
6. you have not been able to give me any single case of patient's death by PAS on "slippery slope"

yep your boat sunk
Flush.gif
 
1. think review and research? hmmm.... *looking at your post #54 & #61* hmm.... yep. I think we both know who did not think, review, and research PAS case
2. no response to my post #68?? interesting....
3. PAS is not the same as euthanasia. not remotely similar at all!
4. The practice of euthanasia is OUTLAWED in America
5. It was rigorously strict enough and difficult enough to get PAS so the discussion of it being possibly broad is fallacious. It's as rare as a Secret Service agent going rogue and assassinating the President.
6. you have not been able to give me any single case of patient's death by PAS on "slippery slope"

yep your boat sunk
Flush.gif

Uh oh he used a shotgun and his little rowboat sunk into icy lake....damnit guppies!
 
Since you are unable to do so and all I need is one case that says otherwise.

PAS can lead to the acceptance of euthanasia. I didn't say PAS is euthanasia. The subject is about slippery slope. That was my point concerning slippery slope. It sets the groundwork and framework for a broader and more acceptable ways of committing suicide or to kill those under involuntary euthanasia. You say this isn't possible (slippery slope) but it's already happening. So, it won't progress to the point that PAS would be seen as a cost-costing measure over medical care? It's already happening.

Here's an euthanasia story.
Diary of terminally ill woman who chose euthanasia | Life and style | The Guardian

Now, it's interesting that you say euthanasia is illegal here in the United States but we do have states that have PAS in place which means the mindset is there to begin with and for it to grow. Are you saying that euthanasia will never be accepted and that a bill covering this would be passed?

Thank you for clarifying that a slippery slope isn't possible and that these "rigorous requirements" are completely failsafe.

:wave:
 
Since you are unable to do so and all I need is one case that says otherwise.

PAS can lead to the acceptance of euthanasia. I didn't say PAS is euthanasia. The subject is about slippery slope. That was my point concerning slippery slope. It sets the groundwork and framework for a broader and more acceptable ways of committing suicide or to kill those under involuntary euthanasia. You say this isn't possible (slippery slope) but it's already happening. So, it won't progress to the point that PAS would be seen as a cost-costing measure over medical care? It's already happening.

Here's an euthanasia story.
Diary of terminally ill woman who chose euthanasia | Life and style | The Guardian

Now, it's interesting that you say euthanasia is illegal here in the United States but we do have states that have PAS in place which means the mindset is there to begin with and for it to grow. Are you saying that euthanasia will never be accepted and that a bill covering this would be passed?

Thank you for clarifying that a slippery slope isn't possible and that these "rigorous requirements" are completely failsafe.

:wave:

1. practice of euthanasia is legal in some European countries
2. the article you gave me occurs in UK, not USA - different legal & medical standard
3. again - Euthanasia and PAS are not the same
4. again - the practice of euthanasia in America is ILLEGAL
5. Euthanasia - it is mostly not by your choice... your life is at their hands
6. PAS in America - it is entirely by your personal choice which is VERIFIED and CONCURRED by medical professionals that you are making a CONSCIOUS & INFORMED choice by your own will with no coercion
7. Lastly - under PAS, you end your life by your OWN hands, not doctor. Under euthanasia - it is done by doctor

you surely are on a slippery slope :lol:

Read & Learn - FAQs about the Death With Dignity Act
Q: What is Oregon's Death with Dignity Act?
A: The Death with Dignity Act (the Act) allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose.

The Act was a citizens' initiative passed twice by Oregon voters. The first time was in a general election in November 1994 when it passed by a margin of 51% to 49%. An injunction delayed implementation of the Act until it was lifted on October 27, 1997. In November 1997, a measure was placed on the general election ballot to repeal the Act. Voters chose to retain the Act by a margin of 60% to 40%.

There is no state "program" for participation in the Act. People do not "make application" to the State of Oregon or the Department of Human Services. It is up to qualified patients and licensed physicians to implement the Act on an individual basis. The Act requires the Department of Human Services to collect information about patients who participate each year and to issue an annual report.

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: Who can give a patient a prescription under the Act?
A: Patients who meet certain criteria can request a prescription for lethal medication from a licensed Oregon physician. The physician must be a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) licensed to practice medicine by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon. The physician must also be willing to participate in the Act. Physicians are not required to provide prescriptions to patients and participation is voluntary. Additionally, some health care systems (for example, a Catholic hospital or the Veterans Administration) have prohibitions against practicing the Act that physicians must abide by as terms of their employment.

Q: How does a patient get a prescription from a participating physician?
A: The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in the Act. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled: 1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days; 2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient; 3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis; 4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself; 5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination; 6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to the Act including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control; 7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. 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.

Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Department of Human Services, Vital Records. As of 1999, pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication's ultimate use.

Q: What kind of prescription will a patient receive?
A: It is up to the physician to determine the prescription. To date, most patients have received a prescription for an oral dosage of a barbiturate.

Q: Must a physician be present at the time the medications are taken?
A: The law does not require the presence of a physician when a patient takes lethal medication. A physician may be present if a patient wishes it, as long as the physician does not administer the medication him/herself.

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.

btw - this is a repost... from a locked thread.
 
LOL , i love this shit, the fucking big fight anyone got some caramelised popcorn going around??
 
It seems both Jiro and kokonut is right, but theres no harmony. Why? because basically Jiro is right about the existing laws and regulations pertaining to the USA as of now. Kokonut insists there is a strong possibility, (or even remotely insignificant but koko argues that even with a SLIGHT adoption of change can indeed bring the floodgate of many of those wants to end it, and with this koko the hairy ball said it well of many great examples like healthy partners want to go as well, (to die together), is a very neat attempt to illustrate how 'far' is this can be accepted should the snowball effect occurs when an adminstration becomes lenient due to some circumstance which might be deemed exceptional. It seem that the preoccupation of Kokonut is to explore further questions regarding the undeniable possibility. While Jiro maintains that the current set up of laws does not allow these possbility to occur, and even adding this rigour to scrutiny of events reported in printed media. I would be inclined to say despite the reports being throughtoutly investigated, there is Always a possibility of changes, especially when we are indeed all walking into the dark times of the so-call economic pending collapse. With this overhanging above us, it is hard not to believe these changes can quite easily occur. Put simply, both are right, but I'd liken to be slightly open ended about what is possible, topics like enthuasia is like hunger for a toast, when it is hot it will stay warm for a while, then if left uneaten it will be cold to that no body wants to disgest it, it get discarded. When feeling hungry, a fresh bread is then used to make another, it starts all over again, as long as the hunger persist, the old will be chucked until satisfied with a good fresh new. Once digested well, that is once the hunger goes (wanting the change), no longer need the toast for hunger, mission accompolished.
That's how i see it, it will happen no doubt just a matter of when.
 
isn't it contradictive to say PAS, that is physican assisted, and when this is only allowed for individual to end their life on their own hand?
or was it that something I dont understand, gone amiss?
 
Grummer - I understand but let me correct you - kokonut is NOT right at all. Not a single point in his argument was provable. Not a single evidence backed his statement of so-called "slippery slope."

FACT: kokonut has NEVER given me any proof that backed his claim as I have requested for proof SEVERAL TIMES.
FACT: there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that PAS leads to suicide of other family members
FACT: PAS has been shown to increase only one thing - the level of palliative care... which means that lives are more often extended than lost prematurely under PAS laws.
FACT: PAS - Physician-Assisted Suicide. That is not a contradictory term. It simply means that the physician assisted in supplying prescriptions of the proper medications in the proper doses for the terminally ill patient while allowing the patient making end of life decisions for themselves. The patient ENDS his/her life with his/her own hand.

see above in my previous post -
Q: Must a physician be present at the time the medications are taken?
A: The law does not require the presence of a physician when a patient takes lethal medication. A physician may be present if a patient wishes it, as long as the physician does not administer the medication him/herself.

FACT: Under euthanasia law in Europe as presented by kokonut - the physician ends the patient's life.

You don't believe me? The information is easily accessible as all PAS deaths must be reported and rigorously & strictly recorded. There are far more deaths from suicide at the own hand of a physically healthy individual using illegally obtained substances, gunfire, and hanging than there are from PAS deaths.

This "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than myth intended to created emotionally charged reactions. It obscures all logic and truth from the actual fact.
 
Back
Top