EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 30, 2014 22:26:47 GMT -5
What did the father-in-law say?
And although sad, at least it was the negligent person that got hit this time, not the kid, another one of the kids, or someone else's kid, etc. That is usually not the case.
This is akin to a drunk driver hitting a tree and taking themselves out for once- or handing a 9 year old girl a full auto assault weapon and getting taken out- Darwin is at work.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 31, 2014 16:10:23 GMT -5
What did the father-in-law say?
And although sad, at least it was the negligent person that got hit this time, not the kid, another one of the kids, or someone else's kid, etc. That is usually not the case.
This is akin to a drunk driver hitting a tree and taking themselves out for once- or handing a 9 year old girl a full auto assault weapon and getting taken out- Darwin is at work.
I don't get you, sir. You've started I don't know how many anti-gun threads, claiming you're not anti-gun but instead a champion for gun safety. You opine about how Americans aren't generally qualified to own firearms, and why oh why can't Uncle Sam put stricter licensing and training requirements in. You convince us for the briefest of moments that you actually care about Americans' safety. Then you inevitably make one of these "Screw humanity." statements that completely undermines your argument and transforms you into a bitter old man. In late 2013 it was you making some "Well, they're better off dead." remark. Then it was a rant by you about how there would be "blood in the streets" if your Social Security and government pension benefits are cut (which I hate to break it to you will most definitely happen). Then in June of this year it was some misanthropic statement about how you hate Internet commenters and humanity in general. Then it was "____ the Republicans" for something to do with gun control. Now it's "Darwin in action." Our whole species can celebrate one less unfit individual who shot herself. Between your missives about how much you revile Republicans and you revile "gun culture" votaries and you revile irresponsible gun owners and you revile Cliven Bundy et al. and you revile pretty much every last one of your countrymen for some reason or another, I tell you sir that it's all but impossible to imagine you actually giving a damn about gun safety. It's far easier to believe that if every irresponsible gun owner in the US took a bullet to the head on January 1, you'd spend the whole of 2015 with a smile on your face and a spring in your step. I'm not kidding. Do you actually care about other people's lives, or is this just one area where you can always spot an arrogant or ignorant gun owner and have a time pointing out their arrogance and ignorance? When you inevitably post your next "Homeowner accidentally shot by son" article, I'd like to think you actually give a damn about the victim. And this is coming from one of the most hard-nosed personalities on the board.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 31, 2014 22:04:25 GMT -5
Not anti-gun, anti-idiot. Screw humanity in general. Blood will run in the streets if SS and Medicare goes away and all of the money paid in vanishes. Internet commenters are in a lot of cases vile, disgusting people and if they are representative of humanity, screw humanity again. The only republicans I revile are generally in the government or running a talk show on AM radio or work for Fox. Cliven Bundy is a criminal racist asshole. The only countrymen I concern myself with are friends, family and coworkers. It is sad the lady got killed as I said- and it is also her own fault- that's how Darwin works. I didn't post the article about this shooting. I am not old. That cover it?
And just for you:
news.yahoo.com/2-dead-apparent-murder-suicide-hospital-room-194824837.html;_ylt=AwrBEiEYuKRU.GAAHGnQtDMD
A New Hampshire man walked into his wife's hospital room early Tuesday, fatally shot her then killed himself, a murder-suicide that he foretold in a candid and emotional Facebook posting to friends and family.
Authorities did not identify the man. But Dorcas Lavoie told The Associated Press that her brother, Mark A. Lavoie, shot his wife, Katherine, "out of love" before killing himself at Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover.
Enjoy the comments about how heroic this man was.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 31, 2014 22:24:18 GMT -5
... the hospital has a policy banning firearms. ... (from the link above) If only the nurses and orderlies had been carrying ... edit: whoops
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 1, 2015 2:15:39 GMT -5
Not anti-gun, anti-idiot. Screw humanity in general. Blood will run in the streets if SS and Medicare goes away and all of the money paid in vanishes. Internet commenters are in a lot of cases vile, disgusting people and if they are representative of humanity, screw humanity again. The only republicans I revile are generally in the government or running a talk show on AM radio or work for Fox. Cliven Bundy is a criminal racist asshole. The only countrymen I concern myself with are friends, family and coworkers. It is sad the lady got killed as I said- and it is also her own fault- that's how Darwin works. I didn't post the article about this shooting. I am not old. That cover it?
And just for you:
news.yahoo.com/2-dead-apparent-murder-suicide-hospital-room-194824837.html;_ylt=AwrBEiEYuKRU.GAAHGnQtDMD
A New Hampshire man walked into his wife's hospital room early Tuesday, fatally shot her then killed himself, a murder-suicide that he foretold in a candid and emotional Facebook posting to friends and family.
Authorities did not identify the man. But Dorcas Lavoie told The Associated Press that her brother, Mark A. Lavoie, shot his wife, Katherine, "out of love" before killing himself at Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover.
Enjoy the comments about how heroic this man was.
That about covers it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:56:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:01:24 GMT -5
Not anti-gun, anti-idiot. Screw humanity in general. Blood will run in the streets if SS and Medicare goes away and all of the money paid in vanishes. Internet commenters are in a lot of cases vile, disgusting people and if they are representative of humanity, screw humanity again. The only republicans I revile are generally in the government or running a talk show on AM radio or work for Fox. Cliven Bundy is a criminal racist asshole. The only countrymen I concern myself with are friends, family and coworkers. It is sad the lady got killed as I said- and it is also her own fault- that's how Darwin works. I didn't post the article about this shooting. I am not old. That cover it?
And just for you:
news.yahoo.com/2-dead-apparent-murder-suicide-hospital-room-194824837.html;_ylt=AwrBEiEYuKRU.GAAHGnQtDMD
A New Hampshire man walked into his wife's hospital room early Tuesday, fatally shot her then killed himself, a murder-suicide that he foretold in a candid and emotional Facebook posting to friends and family.
Authorities did not identify the man. But Dorcas Lavoie told The Associated Press that her brother, Mark A. Lavoie, shot his wife, Katherine, "out of love" before killing himself at Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover.
Enjoy the comments about how heroic this man was.
I know there's some north western States that have death with dignity laws. They allow a drug prescription that has the same end result. Would that fit better in your world view as a way to end inhumane suffering?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 1, 2015 14:07:25 GMT -5
It absolutely would for me. I voted for that law, and am very glad it passed. If we believe in individual liberties and the right to live one's life how they choose, what could be more fundamental to that right than the ability to choose how it ends? It certainly would have made this latest tragedy unnecessary, and would ease the suffering of countless more families. It also guarantees that it is the person's own choice, and not the "interpretation" of those wishes by someone else.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 1, 2015 14:24:23 GMT -5
It absolutely would for me. I voted for that law, and am very glad it passed. If we believe in individual liberties and the right to live one's life how they choose, what could be more fundamental to that right than the ability to choose how it ends? It certainly would have made this latest tragedy unnecessary, and would ease the suffering of countless more families. It also guarantees that it is the person's own choice, and not the "interpretation" of those wishes by someone else. If reports are basically accurate, the Washington's Death With Dignity law would not have applied in this case.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 1, 2015 14:31:42 GMT -5
Probably true, although the article is a little short on clear details. Regardless, the law is a good thing, and I am proud to live in a state that supports its citizens rights and wishes in the matter.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 1, 2015 19:43:23 GMT -5
It absolutely would for me. I voted for that law, and am very glad it passed. If we believe in individual liberties and the right to live one's life how they choose, what could be more fundamental to that right than the ability to choose how it ends? It certainly would have made this latest tragedy unnecessary, and would ease the suffering of countless more families. It also guarantees that it is the person's own choice, and not the "interpretation" of those wishes by someone else. How is a man shooting his comatose wife and himself any more tragic than a man who legally pulls the plug on his wife then uses an "exit bag" to kill himself?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 1, 2015 22:17:26 GMT -5
Again, the law may not apply to this particular case. In the abstract, however, it would reduce the possible effects on surrounding others (either physical or psychological) and disruption of services in the hospital. It also may have obviated the perceived need for the husband to shoot himself afterward.
It appears to have been a failed suicide attempt that resulted in either a comatose or vegetative state. He appears to blame himself for her condition. If she had been allowed to die without the need for him to shoot her, he may have been able to go on. Piling legal consequences on top of the double-portion of guilt was more than he thought he could handle, so he shot himself too. The law itself is pretty restrictive, and I would almost argue it should be expanded slightly. Otherwise we end up with murder-suicides in hospitals....
For a specific answer to your question: There is on one hand an additional unnecessary death (since I again do not stipulate that he would have in fact killed himself though it is a possibility), its effects on the families, its effects on the witnesses, possible effects on patients and hospital personnel, etc. Compare that to a rational and planned response to a bad situation where one person dies as a result of their own choice. Not a tough call for me. And while I recall you having a great deal of trouble thinking that such a death is in any way "dignified" I would again suggest that it is instead a death before losing the dignity one hopes to maintain. I don't see that as a subtle distinction.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 2, 2015 9:22:21 GMT -5
Again, the law may not apply to this particular case. In the abstract, however, it would reduce the possible effects on surrounding others (either physical or psychological) and disruption of services in the hospital. It also may have obviated the perceived need for the husband to shoot himself afterward.
It appears to have been a failed suicide attempt that resulted in either a comatose or vegetative state. He appears to blame himself for her condition. If she had been allowed to die without the need for him to shoot her, he may have been able to go on. Piling legal consequences on top of the double-portion of guilt was more than he thought he could handle, so he shot himself too. The law itself is pretty restrictive, and I would almost argue it should be expanded slightly. Otherwise we end up with murder-suicides in hospitals....
For a specific answer to your question: There is on one hand an additional unnecessary death (since I again do not stipulate that he would have in fact killed himself though it is a possibility), its effects on the families, its effects on the witnesses, possible effects on patients and hospital personnel, etc. Compare that to a rational and planned response to a bad situation where one person dies as a result of their own choice. Not a tough call for me. And while I recall you having a great deal of trouble thinking that such a death is in any way "dignified" I would again suggest that it is instead a death before losing the dignity one hopes to maintain. I don't see that as a subtle distinction. I agree the man's death on top of his wife's is an added tragedy, but we're only speculating that his ending his wife's life illegally rather than legally was the cause of his own suicide. I do grant you that the fact he had a gun in his hand immediately after his wife died at least facilitated his suicide. He might otherwise have had more time to reflect on his actions and change his mind. It would appear our argument is moot anyway, since the DWD laws wouldn't apply in this case. Incidentally, my argument in the DWD thread wasn't that there can be no dignity in death, it was that if an individual facing a terminal illness chooses not to commit suicide, his/her death isn't inherently less dignified than the death of an individual who does elect to "exit" on his/her own terms. It's a complex position because I also acknowledge there comes a point when a patient's quality of life is so diminished that euthanasia is the preferable option. My worry is that "dignity" becomes an end unto itself. Patients with a considerable time left to live with a tolerable quality of life are compelled to throw away this potentially profitable twilight of their lives for sake of dignity. I took exception to the name of the law for the same reason. Although I realize it's not the intent, it lends credence to the notion that checking out earlier rather than at the last possible minute is the only dignified resolution to the how-long-should-I-fight dilemma. For the record, I don't consider this gentleman's shooting his comatose wife to be particularly undignified either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:56:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2015 13:23:05 GMT -5
Again, the law may not apply to this particular case. In the abstract, however, it would reduce the possible effects on surrounding others (either physical or psychological) and disruption of services in the hospital. It also may have obviated the perceived need for the husband to shoot himself afterward.
It appears to have been a failed suicide attempt that resulted in either a comatose or vegetative state. He appears to blame himself for her condition. If she had been allowed to die without the need for him to shoot her, he may have been able to go on. Piling legal consequences on top of the double-portion of guilt was more than he thought he could handle, so he shot himself too. The law itself is pretty restrictive, and I would almost argue it should be expanded slightly. Otherwise we end up with murder-suicides in hospitals....
For a specific answer to your question: There is on one hand an additional unnecessary death (since I again do not stipulate that he would have in fact killed himself though it is a possibility), its effects on the families, its effects on the witnesses, possible effects on patients and hospital personnel, etc. Compare that to a rational and planned response to a bad situation where one person dies as a result of their own choice. Not a tough call for me. And while I recall you having a great deal of trouble thinking that such a death is in any way "dignified" I would again suggest that it is instead a death before losing the dignity one hopes to maintain. I don't see that as a subtle distinction. Well said.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 2, 2015 20:43:09 GMT -5
Again, the law may not apply to this particular case. In the abstract, however, it would reduce the possible effects on surrounding others (either physical or psychological) and disruption of services in the hospital. It also may have obviated the perceived need for the husband to shoot himself afterward.
It appears to have been a failed suicide attempt that resulted in either a comatose or vegetative state. He appears to blame himself for her condition. If she had been allowed to die without the need for him to shoot her, he may have been able to go on. Piling legal consequences on top of the double-portion of guilt was more than he thought he could handle, so he shot himself too. The law itself is pretty restrictive, and I would almost argue it should be expanded slightly. Otherwise we end up with murder-suicides in hospitals....
For a specific answer to your question: There is on one hand an additional unnecessary death (since I again do not stipulate that he would have in fact killed himself though it is a possibility), its effects on the families, its effects on the witnesses, possible effects on patients and hospital personnel, etc. Compare that to a rational and planned response to a bad situation where one person dies as a result of their own choice. Not a tough call for me. And while I recall you having a great deal of trouble thinking that such a death is in any way "dignified" I would again suggest that it is instead a death before losing the dignity one hopes to maintain. I don't see that as a subtle distinction. I agree the man's death on top of his wife's is an added tragedy, but we're only speculating that his ending his wife's life illegally rather than legally was the cause of his own suicide. I do grant you that the fact he had a gun in his hand immediately after his wife died at least facilitated his suicide. He might otherwise have had more time to reflect on his actions and change his mind. It would appear our argument is moot anyway, since the DWD laws wouldn't apply in this case. Incidentally, my argument in the DWD thread wasn't that there can be no dignity in death, it was that if an individual facing a terminal illness chooses not to commit suicide, his/her death isn't inherently less dignified than the death of an individual who does elect to "exit" on his/her own terms. It's a complex position because I also acknowledge there comes a point when a patient's quality of life is so diminished that euthanasia is the preferable option. My worry is that "dignity" becomes an end unto itself. Patients with a considerable time left to live with a tolerable quality of life are compelled to throw away this potentially profitable twilight of their lives for sake of dignity. I took exception to the name of the law for the same reason. Although I realize it's not the intent, it lends credence to the notion that checking out earlier rather than at the last possible minute is the only dignified resolution to the how-long-should-I-fight dilemma. For the record, I don't consider this gentleman's shooting his comatose wife to be particularly undignified either. I don't think anyone is or was arguing that there is either more or less (in absolute terms) dignity in how one chooses to end their life. It is an intensely personal decision, and whatever the individual chooses should be respected. It comes down entirely to the issue of the individual's perception as to their quality of life remaining. They are the arbiter, and this law gives them the legal power that should rightfully be theirs. I would dispute that any such patients are being compelled or even encouraged to end their lives prematurely against their wishes. A patient has every right to fight on as long as they wish. Or not.
The title, "Death With Dignity" is one that I see as shorthand to make a good sound bite for the ballot. It is more, as I have said, a law that enables someone to choose to end their life before degenerating into a condition they feel would be undignified for themselves. It is not inherently more or less dignified to die either way given that it is such a personal decision, but for someone who chooses the option, they are undoubtedly convinced that they will lose less of their dignity this way. And for them, they are correct. They have to be, by definition. It is their life, their perception, and their decision. Someone else may feel otherwise, and that would also be perfectly correct for them. And given that they feel that way, they would not avail themselves of the law anyway so the title is meaningless for them. I would encourage you to look at the title this way, and not as suggesting that one way is better in all cases. But for those who would choose the option, the title...works.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 2, 2015 20:48:39 GMT -5
Thank you, tallguy! Having gone through a long, drawn out passage to death with my mother, and with many patients over the years, that's been the argument I've heard from most of them. "It's MY life, MY death, and MY decision. I will decide for ME what is dignified, what is tolerable, what is bearable, and what is NOT."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 2, 2015 20:57:48 GMT -5
You're very welcome, and anyone dealing with the matter as either patient or caregiver deserves as much consideration as we can give them.
There are VERY few people anywhere who will come down more on the side of individual rights and freedoms as I will, as long as the exercise of those rights and freedoms do not infringe on the rights of others at the same time. This is only one issue where our society does not yet have it right, but we at least seem to be headed that way. If it is one state at a time, at least I'm in an early one....
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 2, 2015 21:01:44 GMT -5
You're very welcome, and anyone dealing with the matter as either patient or caregiver deserves as much consideration as we can give them.
There are VERY few people anywhere who will come down more on the side of individual rights and freedoms as I will, as long as the exercise of those rights and freedoms do not infringe on the rights of others at the same time. This is only one issue where our society does not yet have it right, but we at least seem to be headed that way. If it is one state at a time, at least I'm in an early one.... I have wished for several years that our state had been one of those enlightened states that respects the rights of individuals. Unfortunately for my mother, this backward bunch will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century - never mind the twenty-first!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 2, 2015 21:03:30 GMT -5
You know what you need to do.... Elect liberals!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 2, 2015 21:05:43 GMT -5
You know what you need to do.... Elect liberals! ROFL! Around here? You gotta be kiddin'! I don't think there's a liberal within 150 miles of this place!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 2, 2015 21:14:41 GMT -5
That's why your state is backwards, and still in the 19th century. It takes people willing to challenge orthodoxy to move forward. Not something conservatives are known for. They LIVE for orthodoxy.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 2, 2015 22:11:29 GMT -5
It is true though that the opposition to laws like that are coming from the evangelical base of the GOP.
It is a double whammy with Catholics- a murder and a suicide- both are no-nos.
Should we revisit the Bushes and the Terry Schiavo case? Maybe we should. No one remember the lengths that the government went to?
That's the strange thing about this one- a lot of pro-gun folks are seeing this as the NRA feelgood story of the year- at least on the yahoo comments I was offended by.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 3, 2015 9:04:00 GMT -5
That's the strange thing about this one- a lot of pro-gun folks are seeing this as the NRA feelgood story of the year- at least on the yahoo comments I was offended by.
Okay, this comment explains a lot on your stances here and on other threads. I stopped reading any and all "add a comment" on all news threads at MSN, FOX, etc. You only get whackos who are stirring up the opposition. Half the time I always believed they were posted by members of the media source (of the article) to stir the pot, and did not think they were even real comments, from just average people who read the article and I am talking about both sides of the article being discussed..
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 3, 2015 15:57:55 GMT -5
I try not to read them- can't help it sometimes- New Year's resolution #18- I will not click on any comments
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:56:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 19:47:43 GMT -5
I try not to read them- can't help it sometimes- New Year's resolution #18- I will not click on any comments But then you miss all the FUN people!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 3, 2015 23:00:34 GMT -5
I try not to read them- can't help it sometimes- New Year's resolution #18- I will not click on any comments But then you miss all the FUN people! Only some people find that sort of thing "fun". There are plenty of us who find it anything BUT fun. I'm one of them. I don't read comments for that reason.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 10:14:13 GMT -5
Thank you, tallguy! Having gone through a long, drawn out passage to death with my mother, and with many patients over the years, that's been the argument I've heard from most of them. "It's MY life, MY death, and MY decision. I will decide for ME what is dignified, what is tolerable, what is bearable, and what is NOT." I'm just saying there are broader consequences to that attitude. By definition here we're talking about the dignity of an individual in a suicidal state of mind. A disgraced businessman who jumps off a high bridge into traffic might very well being doing so for sake of his dignity. We nevertheless take measures as a society to prevent him from doing so (much less facilitating the act). We do this because we acknowledge that he is very likely in an irrational state of mind. I'm not claiming that facing a debilitating illness is identical to a ruined businessman, but I will argue that you're far too dismissive of the fact that "MY life, MY death, and MY decision" as they pertain to countless individuals will likewise be made in an irrational state of mind. Not all of them, but many of them. Hence unless your "MY, MY, MY, ..." argument extends to the case of the ruined businessman who has decided for himself what is dignified and what is tolerable, I would hope you'd at least acknowledge the tremendous potential for abuse of the notion of "death with dignity". I'm not saying that the Death with Dignity laws are bad laws. I'm worried by what I perceive to be the total lack of concern for its negative consequences. It is by no means a panacea.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,716
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jan 5, 2015 10:26:50 GMT -5
Vigil, people who jump off bridges and related get the most press but are not the most common ways to commit suicide. In general, I don't we as a society really have a great track record of stopping suicide as it is.
CDC stats from 2011- All suicides •Number of deaths: 39,518 •Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.7 •Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides •Number of deaths: 19,990 •Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.4
Suffocation suicides •Number of deaths: 9,913 •Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
Poisoning suicides •Number of deaths: 6,564 •Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
My guess is the man called 911 to save his wife's life and was despondent he did not save her and she only was alive because she was on a respirator. Since she might have approved, I find this story easier to take than the ones of men or women losing jobs and then doing the murder the suicide thing to their families and themselves.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 5, 2015 12:29:05 GMT -5
Thank you, tallguy! Having gone through a long, drawn out passage to death with my mother, and with many patients over the years, that's been the argument I've heard from most of them. "It's MY life, MY death, and MY decision. I will decide for ME what is dignified, what is tolerable, what is bearable, and what is NOT." I'm just saying there are broader consequences to that attitude. By definition here we're talking about the dignity of an individual in a suicidal state of mind. A disgraced businessman who jumps off a high bridge into traffic might very well being doing so for sake of his dignity. We nevertheless take measures as a society to prevent him from doing so (much less facilitating the act). We do this because we acknowledge that he is very likely in an irrational state of mind. I'm not claiming that facing a debilitating illness is identical to a ruined businessman, but I will argue that you're far too dismissive of the fact that "MY life, MY death, and MY decision" as they pertain to countless individuals will likewise be made in an irrational state of mind. Not all of them, but many of them. Hence unless your "MY, MY, MY, ..." argument extends to the case of the ruined businessman who has decided for himself what is dignified and what is tolerable, I would hope you'd at least acknowledge the tremendous potential for abuse of the notion of "death with dignity". I'm not saying that the Death with Dignity laws are bad laws. I'm worried by what I perceive to be the total lack of concern for its negative consequences. It is by no means a panacea. I don't think any of the Death with Dignity laws allow the suicide of a perfectly healthy individual who's suffering from suicidal ideation, Virgil. That's not their purpose, and not how they're used. I don't believe anyone here has even intimated it's a panacea.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 18:25:39 GMT -5
I'm just saying there are broader consequences to that attitude. By definition here we're talking about the dignity of an individual in a suicidal state of mind. A disgraced businessman who jumps off a high bridge into traffic might very well being doing so for sake of his dignity. We nevertheless take measures as a society to prevent him from doing so (much less facilitating the act). We do this because we acknowledge that he is very likely in an irrational state of mind. I'm not claiming that facing a debilitating illness is identical to a ruined businessman, but I will argue that you're far too dismissive of the fact that "MY life, MY death, and MY decision" as they pertain to countless individuals will likewise be made in an irrational state of mind. Not all of them, but many of them. Hence unless your "MY, MY, MY, ..." argument extends to the case of the ruined businessman who has decided for himself what is dignified and what is tolerable, I would hope you'd at least acknowledge the tremendous potential for abuse of the notion of "death with dignity". I'm not saying that the Death with Dignity laws are bad laws. I'm worried by what I perceive to be the total lack of concern for its negative consequences. It is by no means a panacea. I don't think any of the Death with Dignity laws allow the suicide of a perfectly healthy individual who's suffering from suicidal ideation, Virgil. That's not their purpose, and not how they're used. I don't believe anyone here has even intimated it's a panacea. People have talked about invoking them at the onset of dementia, the onset of Alzheimer's, paraplegia, degenerative muscular illnesses, etc.--conditions that take years to manifest, or that you and I might consider poor justification for suicide, just like the businessman's ruin. One thing I don't get is how you make such a crisp distinction between terminal illness and "everything else" in your "MY, MY, MY ..." assessment. For example, what if the disgraced businessmen is not only facing financial ruin but also the guarantee of spending his twilight years in federal prison. Does the fact that he's a perfectly healthy individual matter then? What about a woman suffering from a particular illness that's characterized by twitches, spasms, and being confined to a wheelchair? The condition progressively worsens over the course of a decade, and she knows that eventually she'll lose her independence and the ability to keep her home. Being the proud, stoic individual that she is, she'd much rather die than wind up confined to a wheelchair in the care of another individual. Is acting on her suicidal ideation acceptable? When we debated the DWD laws, the pro side of the argument was all about patients in unbearable pain facing down the last few days or weeks of their lives. But you well know that some people draw the line far short of that. You have to be willing to accept that "MY, MY, MY ..." criteria for checking out in would in many cases be a tragic waste of a good life. Again, I'm not saying the laws should be struck down. This is just food for thought. Regarding my use of the term "panacea", perhaps I'll restate that proponents of the law don't seem to realize the enormity of its downside.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 5, 2015 20:38:38 GMT -5
I don't know if you are aware of the requirements in Washington, but here is a FAQ page about the act. It does detail who, how, and under what circumstances someone may make the request. It is not a quick or simple matter, so the chance of someone just wanting to die because they "feel bad" is pretty nonexistent. Hope it helps.
ETA: I would hope, Virgil, that reading the requirements of the Act will ease your mind about "the enormity of its downside."
|
|