Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Agnostic007 on April 07, 2014, 07:15:57 AM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592260/Barbaric-law-meant-family-watch-helplessly-girl-2-starved-death-NINE-DAYS-euthanasia-ban.html
Makes you think. We put animals out of their misery and are thought to be cruel if we allow them to suffer. But humans, we have to starve them to death rather than a quick end. I think it's way past time to change the rules..
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592260/Barbaric-law-meant-family-watch-helplessly-girl-2-starved-death-NINE-DAYS-euthanasia-ban.html
Makes you think. We put animals out of their misery and are thought to be cruel if we allow them to suffer. But humans, we have to starve them to death rather than a quick end. I think it's way past time to change the rules..
Of course it makes you think but a very particular and "sentimental" case is not enough to summarise a debate like euthanasia.
But it seems that "emotionnal instantaneous" is the only mode of reflexion in our modern society.
-
Of course it makes you think but a very particular and "sentimental" case is not enough to summarise a debate like euthanasia.
But it seems that "emotionnal instantaneous" is the only mode of reflexion in our modern society.
But I think it is. This is not an isolated instance by any means. A relative of mine died of stomach cancer and her last month was filled with extreme pain. Her last week she was so dosed up with morphine she was out of it. The family had to watch her die an awful death we wouldn't allow a dog to go through. I can think of 2 others just in my own experience with similar circumstances. What is it about us that we think it's better to have someone suffer their last days then to go out with dignity and painfree?
-
I know it sounds bad but personally, I could not euthanize somebody. Who could? Who is supposed to carry out the procedure?
I think euthanization is a slippery slope but in this case the baby was euthanized anyway - just by starvation. I presume also she was sedated during the 9 days.
It seems to be that passive euthanization is OK but active euthanization isn't. I don't get that at all.
I don't think an article from a rag like the Daily Mail is a good way to get a balanced view on what happened in those 9 days. It is a sensationalist rag.
The girl had severe brain injury, so I'm not sure that the statement "the nine days of suffering Natty endured could have been replaced with 30 seconds of a medically-induced, less painful death."
Also the following statement sounds odd
"Natty lost half her body weight and became increasingly delirious. She became 'nothing but a shell of the little girl, that a few short months ago, filled our lives with laughter and happiness,' her family said."
If she was deaf, blind and paralysed and suffering from seizures prior to the starvation - was she not already nothing but a shell of the little girl?
There's no doubt she was a beautiful girl. A friend of mind had his 4 year old daughter die of cancer - on valentines day of all days. I remember sitting in a bar with him and looking at him and tears were streaming down his face - because the place we were in was playing the song they played at her funeral.
I'm welling up just thinking about it. When he sees my daughter it reminds him of Jazzy. Honestly - we don't know how lucky we are to not go through that. I can't imagine it.
This is a tough read - but here is her story - http://www.jazzywren.com/jazzywren.com/Welcome.html
-
parents are obviously dumb
you can learn how to make a painless suicide pill here:
http://www.exitinternational.net/
also, you could just travel to the land of the swiss and get it done
in the age of information, ignorance is a choice my friend!
-
i believe that every human being has the RIGHT to a painless medically assisted suicide
-
parents are obviously dumb
you can learn how to make a painless suicide pill here:
http://www.exitinternational.net/
also, you could just travel to the land of the swiss and get it done
in the age of information, ignorance is a choice my friend!
I wouldn't say dumb - but the father could have just put a hand over her face and suffocated her. He'd have gotten away with it most likely -but I think it's a lot easier said than done.
Even a suicide pill would be hard to administer as a parent. I think the bottom line is they want her to have a peaceful exit but want someone else to do it.
-
No reason for people to have to suffer...
It's not even about the pain the person is in... It's selfishness on the part of those who can't stand letting them go.
It's bullshit.
-
if your kid is dying and you choose to go through a painful route of not supplying them with food, that is just plain stupid! go on the internet, do some research, and make it happen in a more humane way!
people don't think! just like they don't think before bringing a brand new human being into this shitty world we live in. there is absolutely no reason to have children at this point in human history; the negatives outweigh the positives
anyone who has kids on purpose nowadays is just fueling their ego and living in a fantasy land! that and they are completely devoid of any consciousness.
-
if your kid is dying and you choose to go through a painful route of not supplying them with food, that is just plain stupid! go on the internet, do some research, and make it happen in a more humane way!
people don't think! just like they don't think before bringing a brand new human being into this shitty world we live in. there is absolutely no reason to have children at this point in human history; the negatives outweigh the positives
anyone who has kids on purpose nowadays is just fueling their ego and living in a fantasy land! that and they are completely devoid of any consciousness.
Why do parents have to risk prison to do so? Sure there are ways of ending the life yourself, but when you do this, you risk everything. Why do we have to? The law needs to change
-
As the father I would have immediately slipped her an injection of a lethal dose of morphine or the like. No way with the sob story backing him he would have done any time. Would have been regarded as a hero probably.
-
I have had a mother and mother in law go by way of hospice. Hospice, in my opinion and observations, in nothing more than a long slow euthanasia. You can call it what you want, wrap it up with counselors and caring professionals, its bullshit. Large doses of opiates, withhold food and water. Once water is withheld its fairly quick. Those opposed to euthanasia, particularly politicians, should be required to observe one of these deaths in its entirety before they can vote on any legislation concerning euthanasia.
-
I have had a mother and mother in law go by way of hospice. Hospice, in my opinion and observations, in nothing more than a long slow euthanasia. You can call it what you want, wrap it up with counselors and caring professionals, its bullshit. Large doses of opiates, withhold food and water. Once water is withheld its fairly quick. Those opposed to euthanasia, particularly politicians, should be required to observe one of these deaths in its entirety before they can vote on any legislation concerning euthanasia.
Agreed.
-
people always misuse the word "euthanize"
you don't euthanize a serial killer.. you kill him. dogs that are deemed violent.. are killed, not euthanized. I always see this word being thrown around like a eufemism for simple killing or murdering to be exact.
and this texan way of "euthanizing" seems strange to me.
-
just give her a few vegetables and fruits, get her training hard fast one day a week to become anabolic , so says the armwrestler champ from ROSSIYA
-
But neurologist Sarah Austin, who works with terminal patients, said legalizing euthanasia could be a slippery slope.
'When do you decide that this is the right time to hasten their death? ... I think you do better to allow that process to go on naturally and make people comfortable in the process,' she said.
comfortable?????what comfortable when you starve to your death
this is fucking nuts
-
Maybe only 4,999 peopled 'liked' her FB picture, so god had to kill her
-
I like the idea of being able to choose my own way out, and not have the state decide how and when I should go.
But does anyone else on here find it a slippery slope when folks are given the ability to choose when someone else's life should end? How "ok" is it for someone to choose someone's else's time of death, when they person who's dying can't really give consent? Who should be allowed to make that choice? When are they allowed to make it?
I don't have the answers, and I truly wrestle with this one.
Here's one thing I know; those parents just went through the worst kind of hell imaginable. A parent should never have to bury their child.
-
But I think it is. This is not an isolated instance by any means. A relative of mine died of stomach cancer and her last month was filled with extreme pain. Her last week she was so dosed up with morphine she was out of it. The family had to watch her die an awful death we wouldn't allow a dog to go through. I can think of 2 others just in my own experience with similar circumstances. What is it about us that we think it's better to have someone suffer their last days then to go out with dignity and painfree?
The "law" may say one thing, but in such instances the moral act is to squirt enough morphine into their mouth to bring the end about quickly. It's doable if home care is elected and a set amount of morphine is distributed to the family.
So you just sat there and let the family member writhe/gurgle in pain for days on end? That sounds like a pussy move.
-
The "law" may say one thing, but in such instances the moral act is to squirt enough morphine into their mouth to bring the end about quickly. It's doable if home care is elected and a set amount of morphine is distributed to the family.
So you just sat there and let the family member writhe away till the end? That sounds like a pussy move.
Million Dollar Baby. He did the right thing.
-
As the father I would have immediately slipped her an injection of a lethal dose of morphine or the like. No way with the sob story backing him he would have done any time. Would have been regarded as a hero probably.
This is America. The law is backward. He would have done time.
-
It's f'n pathetic that a condemned prisoner exits painlessly/peacefully, yet poor, innocent bastards have to suffer needlessly until the reaper finally calls. Kevorkian and Dignitas, et al. are far more humane than some extended hospice bullshit.
-
I like the idea of being able to choose my own way out, and not have the state decide how and when I should go.
But does anyone else on here find it a slippery slope when folks are given the ability to choose when someone else's life should end? How "ok" is it for someone to choose someone's else's time of death, when they person who's dying can't really give consent? Who should be allowed to make that choice? When are they allowed to make it?
I don't have the answers, and I truly wrestle with this one.
Here's one thing I know; those parents just went through the worst kind of hell imaginable. A parent should never have to bury their child.
Well yes it's a slippery slope indeed. I don't like the idea of accepted killing, wether it be capital punishment, "euthanasia" or killing of animals for fun.
However you have to make room for common sense and do a case to case judgement when needed about euthanasia and real suffering. I mean in principle is one thing but also important to look at the whole picture.
In the end even if science allowed all humans to live forever it wouldn't be sustainable... slippery yes..
-
This is America. The law is backward. He would have done time.
This.
-
There are no laws stopping granny or grandpa going off into the woods to die. So why should there be laws made for doctors to do it? If they don't have the willpower to do it themselves, then nobody else should.
-
The Terry Schiavo (sp?) case covered all this....
-
Well yes it's a slippery slope indeed. I don't like the idea of accepted killing, wether it be capital punishment, "euthanasia" or killing of animals for fun.
However you have to make room for common sense and do a case to case judgement when needed about euthanasia and real suffering. I mean in principle is one thing but also important to look at the whole picture.
In the end even if science allowed all humans to live forever it wouldn't be sustainable... slippery yes..
And that, to me, sounds like a trial. With a jury. On a case by case basis.
And how many people are going to be willing to ok a child being killed? Enough to create a consensus amongst a jury? I don't think it'll ever get passed...there's just too much division of opinion on the topc.
And then does that case create precedent to try future cases? If it's a similar case (a little girl, brain dead and suffering, but who was refused euthanasia in a previous case), does that case get dismissed without a hearing? What about a case that's almost the same...
It's not easy, is it.
I agree in common sense. But what's common sense to each of us is quite different, isn't it?
-
Dr. Kevorkian was right in cases like this one.
-
And that, to me, sounds like a trial. With a jury. On a case by case basis.
And how many people are going to be willing to ok a child being killed? Enough to create a consensus amongst a jury? I don't think it'll ever get passed...there's just too much division of opinion on the topc.
And then does that case create precedent to try future cases? If it's a similar case (a little girl, brain dead and suffering, but who was refused euthanasia in a previous case), does that case get dismissed without a hearing? What about a case that's almost the same...
It's not easy, is it.
I agree in common sense. But what's common sense to each of us is quite different, isn't it?
Yes it is very different.. but I still think there should be room for a review of the current situation instead of blindly following protocol. The law as helpful as it is, cannot describe everything in this world.
Personally I think if you going to kill someone.. it's better to end it quickly than to starve the person no matter how many drugs you give them. I'm not sure what happened with this baby and why one way of killing is legal but another isn't.
But I am not sure anyone has the right to kill someone anyhow, even though they may suffer it seems wrong to me and I wouldn't want anyone else making that choice for me and I would have a hard time pulling someones plug no matter what.
There are of course nuances to killing, like self defense, suicide, survival and euthanasia. And also the species of killee.
And the fact that we can keep someone alive with machines today really adds to the difficulty of defining euthanasia when the person should never have survived in nature. When is the person really alive, where is the line drawn? Where will technology go in the future? Is there no need to change the laws when the world is changing around us?
All these nuances makes it questionable to have a cookie cutter absolutistic bans that is supposed to apply for all.
-
And the fact that we can keep someone alive with machines today really adds to the difficulty of defining euthanasia when the person should never have survived in nature.
I'm sure you can choose to walk away, or wheelchair away from the machine if one TRULY wants to.
-
Yes it is very different.. but I still think there should be room for a review of the current situation instead of blindly following protocol. The law as helpful as it is, cannot describe everything in this world.
Personally I think if you going to kill someone.. it's better to end it quickly than to starve the person no matter how many drugs you give them. I'm not sure what happened with this baby and why one way of killing is legal but another isn't.
But I am not sure anyone has the right to kill someone anyhow, even though they may suffer it seems wrong to me and I wouldn't want anyone else making that choice for me and I would have a hard time pulling someones plug no matter what.
There are of course nuances to killing, like self defense, suicide, survival and euthanasia. And also the species of killee.
And the fact that we can keep someone alive with machines today really adds to the difficulty of defining euthanasia when the person should never have survived in nature. When is the person really alive, where is the line drawn? Where will technology go in the future? Is there no need to change the laws when the world is changing around us?
All these nuances makes it questionable to have a cookie cutter absolutistic bans that is supposed to apply for all.
I definitely agree with this.
If one is capable of choosing (i.e. old enough, mature enough, and with their faculties intact), then one should be free to choose when to checkout. I find it appalling that the law will not allow me to sign a document right now stating that I choose to die on my terms, when it is my time, without calling it suicide. If I were to do it, my family would be robbed of all the life insurance money that should rightfully be paid to them.
Doesn't that make anyone wonder who really pulls the strings here? Is it a life insurance corporate agenda to keep people from checking out and forcing payouts?
Maybe...maybe not. Probably not. And I digress....
If I'm terminally ill, I should be able to put a gun in my mouth and take care of things my own way. And life insurance companies should payout to my family as if I were allowed to waste away and rot in a hospice bed for months. Is one death ok, and another decidedly more undignified and unworthy? I say no.
The grey area comes into when adults are allowed to decide when others in their family should be put to death. What if I'm old, and rotting, and my kids decide it's time for dad to ride into the sunset so they can get a payout? What if I decide it's not my time, but I'm not considered "mentally there" enough to make that decision. And euthanasia is deemed ok, and the kids get to decide it. I'd still love them if there's an afterlife, and if there isn't, I'm dead and won't care anyways. But I want it to be my call...not the state, or a family member.
I wonder if that little girl felt the same. Or felt nothing at all and it didn't matter. I guess we'll never know. Maybe that's why the debate is so hard to wrestle to the ground.
Who's allowed to kill themselves for humanitarian reasons? Who's not?
Can a parent really decide for a child? Should they? I want to say yes, but I couldn't. Because if it were my little one suffering, as much I'd want to hold onto them forever, it would be my own selfish heart that's doing the thinking. I wouldn't be thinking clearly about my own child's needs. I couldn't bear life without them. I couldn't bear waking up in the middle of the night wondering if there was some tiny sliver of hope and I gave up on them.
Maybe my child would always want to live. Children have a natural fighting spirit that never gives up...a spirit that gets beaten out of us as we grow into adults. You see all these little kids in cancer wings of the hospital (I saw it a lot when my daughter was very ill and spent a while in the hospital)....you know there are adults that if faced with the hell these kids go through, would want to give up. But these kids smile, and laugh, and just go on living. They're not as happy as they could be, but somehow, their joie-de-vivre lets them live on. They're so much stronger than adults.
And if my child is like that, even in a vegetative state, is there not some tiny bit of spirit in their bodies somewhere...some tiny bit of consciousness somewhere crying out to mommy and daddy to just hug them a bit more and not give up on them? How do I know there isn't? Some doctor's word? Some machine? How will I ever live with myself? I'll never know, will I? I'll never know if there was a tiny bit of hope left in their bodies, and I snuffed it out. I will have given up on them.
And I know they'll be dead. So it won't matter to them. But it will matter to me for the rest of my life and haunt me until it crushes every last reason for living out of my body. And I know that's selfish. But I'm honest enough with myself to know where I stand.
I'm admitting I'm not strong enough to do what these parents did, if that is in fact a show of strength. I could never do it. I would simply lay in their beds beside them and hold them until the machines couldn't keep them alive anymore, or my own heart stopped beating and someone else could step in and do what I didn't have the strength or courage or unattachment to do.
Buy my weakness should not prevent another parent who's strong enough to do what I won't. And the heartlessness of a state that forces a parent, who deems this to be appropriate, to have to starve a baby is badly in need of reform.
If you don't think a humane euthanasia is acceptable, then neither is starving a little girl. One cannot be unacceptable and the other acceptable. That kind of laissez-faire attitude doesn't cut it with me. That's laziness and avoiding the complexity and humanity of the situation. But we can't bury our heads in the sand about it.
Reform is needed. And I would vote that parents should have a right to end a child's needless suffering. I would never use the power this law gives me, but it's nice to know bureaucracy and a nanny-state aren't preventing me from doing what is right for my baby. It's not their call. It's mine. It always will be mine. And there's a big difference between murder and euthanasia, and those who don't see the line are shit-disturbers of the most heinous nature.