PDA

View Full Version : Euthanasia, Canadian style



Bluesky
01-15-2016, 09:58 AM
Even though all of the report’s recommendations might not be implemented into law, it is an important document that illustrates the radical ambition of the euthanasia movement, agendas usually kept in the shadows so as not to alarm a wary public. Here are just a few of the recommendations, followed by a brief description of why they are important:

“All provinces and territories should ensure access to physician-assisted dying, including both physician-administered and self-administered physician-assisted dying.” Assisted-suicide advocates often claim that the requirement of self-administration is a crucial safeguard to protect the weak against non-voluntary death. In actuality, coercion can easily happen behind closed doors. Moreover, since studies in the Netherlands have shown that lethal injection has far fewer side effects—such as convulsions and extended coma—than swallowed prescribed overdoses, the application of hastened death will tend to be homicidal.

“The provision of physician-assisted dying [should also be permitted] by a regulated health care professional (registered nurse or, if applicable, physician assistant) acting under the direction of a physician, or a nurse practitioner.” Nurses always get the dirty jobs. Allowing nurses to do the actual killing of patients not only normalizes euthanasia—giving it the appearance of just another routine medical “treatment”—but also isolates doctors from personally participating in killing, making the death prescription that much easier to dispense.

“We do not recommend a prescribed waiting/reflection period.” People legally qualified for euthanasia who want to die now will be able to do so without waiting the time during which some find a renewed desire to live. (Adding to the danger, the committee recommends that euthanasia be available “any time” after receiving a death-qualifying diagnosis. This is particularly reckless, since the initial shock of a serious diagnosis can cause temporary thoughts of suicide.)

“Access to physician-assisted dying should not be impeded by the imposition of arbitrary age limits . . . eligibility for physician-assisted dying is to be based on competence rather than age.” This opens the door to child euthanasia—meaning that boys and girls who cannot legally consent to being tattooed could be able lawfully to order themselves killed.

“Faith-based institutions must either allow physician-assisted dying within the institution or make arrangements for the safe and timely transfer of the patient to a non-objecting institution.” As with religiously dissenting doctors, who the recommendations say should be required to refer “qualified” patients for euthanasia, religiously oriented medical facilities that view euthanasia as a grievous sin (say, Catholic institutions) would face coerced complicity in ending the life of a patient who wants to die.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/01/what-euthanasia-enthusiasts-really-want

And here is the report the above comments are based on.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/bulletin/2015/docs/eagreport_20151214_en.pdf

RWGR
01-15-2016, 10:00 AM
“Faith-based institutions must either allow physician-assisted dying within the institution or make arrangements for the safe and timely transfer of the patient to a non-objecting institution.” As with religiously dissenting doctors, who the recommendations say should be required to refer “qualified” patients for euthanasia, religiously oriented medical facilities that view euthanasia as a grievous sin (say, Catholic institutions) would face coerced complicity in ending the life of a patient who wants to die.


holy Can of Worms, Batman!!

this is a disaster waiting to happen.

Anapeg
01-15-2016, 01:30 PM
I am fully behind the assisted dying group. I stood, watching my Mother die in excruciating pain for a week or more that painkillers were unable to quell. I have just recently stood and watched a very dear friend die slowly of cancer with unmanageable pain. We euthanize animals out of love and caring and not wishing to watch them wither and in pain but we cannot do this for family and friends? Barbaric.

Bluesky
01-15-2016, 01:44 PM
I understand the feeling. I just don't agree with institutionalizing this. I am afraid the slippery slope argument has been proven not to be fallacious in this case. I too have seen many die slow and painful deaths. I would be in favour of medicating against the pain, and I have seen that the medication often speeds up the process. I have no argument with that.

RWGR
01-15-2016, 03:25 PM
I am fully behind the assisted dying group. I stood, watching my Mother die in excruciating pain for a week or more that painkillers were unable to quell. I have just recently stood and watched a very dear friend die slowly of cancer with unmanageable pain. We euthanize animals out of love and caring and not wishing to watch them wither and in pain but we cannot do this for family and friends? Barbaric.

I watched my mother die a slow death to cancer, and am on the opposite side as you on this issue. The word "barbaric" was never uttered by anyone, least of all her.

Barry Morris
01-15-2016, 03:43 PM
My understanding is that in England they use heroin very effectively for pain relief but that just can't happen in North America.

Hans
01-15-2016, 06:53 PM
It is a typical reaction for religious people to believe and insist they are correct in their beliefs, and with that remove the chance of somebody having the ability to make an independent choice.

Bluesky
01-15-2016, 07:15 PM
It is a typical reaction for religious people to believe and insist .

Ooops. atheists might take issue with you on that.

Here's the "Hitch" himself. You know, the one who wrote "How Religion Poisons Everything?"

Hitchens: There's no choice but choice. I mean that to sound the way it does sound. But there are choices about the conditions in which that choice is made.

I'm very much opposed to euthanasia. I've never understood why more of these people can't commit suicide. Why do they need a Doctor Kevorkian? It's very theatrical. I believe in a right to decide.

But I'm against all blurrings. There's a very sharp dividing line in the case of an infant. I'm against fooling with that. Everything in me rebels against that. The conclusion I've come to as to why it' s such a toxic question in America is it isn't about the rights of the unborn child. I think it's an argument about patriarchy. It is a metaphor for the status of women in what is still in some ways a frontier society.

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/christopher_hitchens_1997_progressive_interview.ht ml#sthash.ZZDAm7AV.dpuf

Anapeg
01-15-2016, 08:48 PM
I understand the feeling. I just don't agree with institutionalizing this. I am afraid the slippery slope argument has been proven not to be fallacious in this case. I too have seen many die slow and painful deaths. I would be in favour of medicating against the pain, and I have seen that the medication often speeds up the process. I have no argument with that.

It speeds the process yes but not enough. The end stages of cancer do not bow down to the God that is morphine. It just causes some, myself being one of them who morphine only causes me to itch and sweat. With a proper tribunal in place, I don't see the "slippery slope" as that great a looming danger. Doctors, lawyers, Holy people, family on a rotational ad hock basis would also go a long way to eliminating many problems.

Hans
01-15-2016, 10:11 PM
Ooops. atheists might take issue with you on that.

Here's the "Hitch" himself. You know, the one who wrote "How Religion Poisons Everything?"

Hitchens: There's no choice but choice. I mean that to sound the way it does sound. But there are choices about the conditions in which that choice is made.

I'm very much opposed to euthanasia. I've never understood why more of these people can't commit suicide. Why do they need a Doctor Kevorkian? It's very theatrical. I believe in a right to decide.

But I'm against all blurrings. There's a very sharp dividing line in the case of an infant. I'm against fooling with that. Everything in me rebels against that. The conclusion I've come to as to why it' s such a toxic question in America is it isn't about the rights of the unborn child. I think it's an argument about patriarchy. It is a metaphor for the status of women in what is still in some ways a frontier society.

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/christopher_hitchens_1997_progressive_interview.ht ml#sthash.ZZDAm7AV.dpuf

It does not take away from the fact that religious people insist they are correct in their beliefs.
Have you ever heard a religious person claim they do not believe?

Bluesky
01-15-2016, 11:05 PM
DO you insist that you are correct, Hans?

Anapeg
01-15-2016, 11:26 PM
DO you insist that you are correct, Hans?

Constantly. Oh, sorry. That was not directed at me was it?

Hans
01-16-2016, 12:26 AM
DO you insist that you are correct, Hans?


Now let me reply to that with a question: would you ever consider becoming a non believer?

BFLPE
01-16-2016, 12:37 AM
“We do not recommend a prescribed waiting/reflection period.” People legally qualified for euthanasia who want to die now will be able to do so without waiting the time during which some find a renewed desire to live. (Adding to the danger, the committee recommends that euthanasia be available “any time” after receiving a death-qualifying diagnosis. This is particularly reckless, since the initial shock of a serious diagnosis can cause temporary thoughts of suicide.)Holy crap, so basically meet with the doc and ten minutes later end your life! Oh wait, lets look at the rest of the recommendation they pulled that little gem from.

"Recommendation 26: We do not recommend a prescribed waiting/reflection period. Rather, the time between initial request and declaration will vary according to the time it takes for the attending and reviewing physician to be confident that the declaration is free and informed and made by a competent individual."

So instead of an arbitrary amount of time we'll leave it to the discretion of the professionals. That sounds reasonable to me.

RWGR
01-16-2016, 08:01 AM
It speeds the process yes but not enough. The end stages of cancer do not bow down to the God that is morphine.

The cancer doesn't, but the soul does. The cancer dies with the patient's body; the soul does not.

Bluesky
01-16-2016, 09:39 AM
Now let me reply to that with a question: would you ever consider becoming a non believer?

Thank you. You answered my question.

Bluesky
01-16-2016, 09:43 AM
The cancer doesn't, but the soul does. The cancer dies with the patient's body; the soul does not.

I think here is where the divide is. If were no soul, ì might support euthanasia.

Barry Morris
01-16-2016, 11:21 AM
Now let me reply to that with a question: would you ever consider becoming a non believer?

I personally could never have that much faith.

RWGR
01-16-2016, 11:58 AM
I think here is where the divide is. If were no soul, ì might support euthanasia.

Same here

BFLPE
01-16-2016, 12:06 PM
... the medication often speeds up the process. I have no argument with that.So it's OK to speed up the dying process in a way that prolongs but minimizes the pain. It's not OK to do it in a way the ends the pain more quickly.

Bluesky
01-16-2016, 01:01 PM
There is a big difference between a model of pain management and intentional ending of life. If a side effe of pain management is a hastening up of the process of dyin, I think that is okay, because your objective is to minimize pain, not to cause death.

But here is a journal article (if you are up to some reading) that validates the slippery slope argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

BFLPE
01-16-2016, 01:27 PM
There is a big difference between a model of pain management and intentional ending of life. If a side effe of pain management is a hastening up of the process of dyin, I think that is okay, because your objective is to minimize pain, not to cause death.When we're talking about those for who there is no hope of recovery and the only way the pain will end is with death the only argument, IMO, for not ending the suffering was the possibility that some miracle or breakthrough may occur to change that equation. By hastening the process you reduce that possibility. It's a tough issue but in my mind the only one benefiting by prolonging, while minimizing, the pain is the one who doesn't want to feel responsible for the inevitable. Certainly the one who spends their last moments in pain don't benefit by prolonging it.


But here is a journal article (if you are up to some reading) that validates the slippery slope argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/Good article. There are some troubling things in there, over 70 and just doesn't want to keep living, wow.

The slippery slope is there but it has a floor, it's not an abyss. When something is too restrictive to start the floor tends to lower a bit over time.

Hans
01-16-2016, 09:54 PM
Thank you. You answered my question.

And that is the difference between me and you. You would never consider other options because you are rooted in your beliefs being the one and only option.
It stifles any type of discussion.

Barry Morris
01-16-2016, 10:58 PM
And that is the difference between me and you. You would never consider other options because you are rooted in your beliefs being the one and only option.
It stifles any type of discussion.

And you are not???

Right!!!

Bluesky
01-16-2016, 11:00 PM
Hans, you are the one who stifles discussion, because you answer questions with questions 99% of the time.

Anapeg
01-17-2016, 08:00 AM
Hans, you are the one who stifles discussion, because you answer questions with questions 99% of the time.

I do believe him to be Jewish rather than Belgian.

Barry Morris
01-17-2016, 08:14 AM
I do believe him to be Jewish rather than Belgian.

??? Why not both??? Or do you mean Israeli???

Or are you talking about that old joke??? :) :) :)

KDawg
01-17-2016, 08:26 AM
??? Why not both?? Or do you mean Israeli???

Or are you talking about that old joke??? :) :) :)
Eleven question marks plastered randomly around words to ask three questions? Really?

Bluesky
01-17-2016, 08:57 AM
Anapeg, I get your meaning :)

Barry Morris
01-17-2016, 09:15 AM
Eleven question marks plastered randomly around words to ask three questions? Really?

Sorry, the key jammed after I got that far!!! Corrected now.

Anapeg
01-17-2016, 01:27 PM
??? Why not both??? Or do you mean Israeli???

Or are you talking about that old joke??? :) :) :)

Simply referring to the way Jews will answer a question with a question eg; Waiter to Jewish patron, "How was the soup"? Jewish patron, "So what's not to like about soup"?

Anapeg
01-17-2016, 01:29 PM
sorry, the key jammed after i got that far!!! Corrected now.

w-d 40???

Barry Morris
01-17-2016, 02:34 PM
w-d 40???

Nah, dishwasher!!! OK now!!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
01-17-2016, 02:36 PM
Simply referring to the way Jews will answer a question with a question eg; Waiter to Jewish patron, "How was the soup"? Jewish patron, "So what's not to like about soup"?

The more classic line is "Why do you Jews always answer a question with a question?" and the reply, "Why not??"

Hans
01-17-2016, 03:39 PM
Hans, you are the one who stifles discussion, because you answer questions with questions 99% of the time.

Well, to answer your question directly: I believe i am right unless you can prove me otherwise. And that is tangible proof, not accepted proof.
That goes for any question you ask me.

Barry Morris
01-17-2016, 06:56 PM
Well, to answer your question directly: I believe i am right unless you can prove me otherwise. And that is tangible proof, not accepted proof.
That goes for any question you ask me.

Really??

Hans, your interaction in this post reminds me of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Tell you what, you could list the different types of proof for us, especially since you have specified what you want.

Hans
01-17-2016, 07:07 PM
Fact is euthanasia is used as a method to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering for those who are terminally ill. It is not just used for human life, but also for animal life.
Now if you believe there is something wrong with that fact, you will have to provide a fact that proves me wrong.

Barry Morris
01-17-2016, 10:17 PM
Well then, lets cut to the chase, and make it close to home:

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca/2013/09/raphael-cohen-almagor-recent-article.html

"Research article confirms - Belgian euthanasia law is being abused."

"...the law specifically states that it is “the physician who performs euthanasia…”

"...high number of incidents where nurses administered lethal drugs to patients who did not explicitly wish to die; this was done mostly without the physician co-administering (82%)."

" A 2011 study found that 35% of the time a physician did not consult an independent specialist."


Another site:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/02/doctor-killed-300-patients-in-euthanasia-to-free-up-hospital-beds/
"If we examine three recent studies from the Flanders region of Belgium we find that:
32% of all euthanasia deaths were done without explicit request.
47% of all euthanasia deaths were not reported as euthanasia.
Nurses are euthanizing their patients, even though the Belgium law limits the act of euthanasia to doctors.
The study concerning the role of nurses found that 14 nurses admitted to euthanizing their patient and 2 stated that it was done without the permission of the doctor. It is important to note that the Belgian euthanasia law does not permit nurses to euthanize their patients."

Some facts.

Hans
01-18-2016, 03:45 AM
And that disproves nothing to the statement "euthanasia is used as a method to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering for those who are terminally ill. It is not just used for human life, but also for animal life."

Barry Morris
01-18-2016, 08:13 AM
And that disproves nothing to the statement "euthanasia is used as a method to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering for those who are terminally ill. It is not just used for human life, but also for animal life."

But you must add the words, "also used" because it is misused, to end life without explicit permission, applied by the unqualified, used outside the law and to remove "bed blockers"!!!

So your statement is incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

To include humans, who CAN give explicit permission, with animals, who cannot, is a poor argument.

Hans
01-18-2016, 04:00 PM
Your argument is akin to stating we should not drive cars anymore, because some deadly accidents happen due to DUI, reckless driving etc...
It is not because it is/has been abused by a minority we should just stop with it completely.

You are aware who Harold Shipman was, correct?

Barry Morris
01-18-2016, 07:25 PM
Your argument is akin to stating we should not drive cars anymore, because some deadly accidents happen due to DUI, reckless driving etc...
It is not because it is/has been abused by a minority we should just stop with it completely.

You are aware who Harold Shipman was, correct?

Is it indeed?? You ever ride in a car against your will??

We aren't talking about fender benders here, or a chance of being killed, we're talking about guaranteed death, and sometimes murder.

And there are a few Shipman's out there apparently. Changing the euthanasia laws will only increase the problem of people thinking they know what is best for others.

We are not dogs.

BFLPE
01-18-2016, 07:57 PM
"Research article confirms - Belgian euthanasia law is being abused."

"...the law specifically states that it is “the physician who performs euthanasia…”

"...high number of incidents where nurses administered lethal drugs to patients who did not explicitly wish to die; this was done mostly without the physician co-administering (82%)."

" A 2011 study found that 35% of the time a physician did not consult an independent specialist."That shines a light on the need for proper oversight and monitoring, nothing more.

Bluesky
01-18-2016, 10:49 PM
Repeated examples of abuse from other countries where euthanasia is practiced only demonstrates that human nature cannot be trusted with this awful 'freedom'.

Hans
01-19-2016, 03:48 PM
So you rather suffer and prolong the inevitable than have it over with?

RWGR
01-19-2016, 04:04 PM
The problem, Hans, is that we will eventually make the definition of "prolonged suffering" so vague that it will eventually encompass almost anything.

Fast-forward twenty years..."seven people today opted into the NPS (Negative Prolonged Suffering) program instituted by the United Nations last month. Three ended their lives due to "increasing debt", two opted out of life due to "inability to bear the absence of a significant other" while two filed under "chronic lack of natural light", a very popular choice in many northern states and Canadian provinces. Family members were informed of the decisions via the UN's Compassionate Text and Email service.

A handful of states and three provinces continue to fight the implementation of NPS, but most legal scholars and analysts agree they have very little chance of success, as the UN instituted the program under the auspices of "a basic human right, not unlike the right to water, food, and shelter".

Think that's too extreme? Just wait.

BFLPE
01-19-2016, 08:20 PM
The problem, Hans, is that we will eventually make the definition of "prolonged suffering" so vague that it will eventually encompass almost anything.

Fast-forward twenty years..."seven people today opted into the NPS (Negative Prolonged Suffering) program instituted by the United Nations last month. Three ended their lives due to "increasing debt", two opted out of life due to "inability to bear the absence of a significant other" while two filed under "chronic lack of natural light", a very popular choice in many northern states and Canadian provinces. Family members were informed of the decisions via the UN's Compassionate Text and Email service.

A handful of states and three provinces continue to fight the implementation of NPS, but most legal scholars and analysts agree they have very little chance of success, as the UN instituted the program under the auspices of "a basic human right, not unlike the right to water, food, and shelter".

Think that's too extreme? Just wait.Sure Sock. Of course it seems strange you refer to the UN as we'll be under Sharia Law before then.

The so called skippery slope may be steep but it's short and what you suggest falls way below the bottom of the slope.

Hans
01-19-2016, 08:31 PM
The problem, Hans, is that we will eventually make the definition of "prolonged suffering" so vague that it will eventually encompass almost anything.

Fast-forward twenty years..."seven people today opted into the NPS (Negative Prolonged Suffering) program instituted by the United Nations last month. Three ended their lives due to "increasing debt", two opted out of life due to "inability to bear the absence of a significant other" while two filed under "chronic lack of natural light", a very popular choice in many northern states and Canadian provinces. Family members were informed of the decisions via the UN's Compassionate Text and Email service.

A handful of states and three provinces continue to fight the implementation of NPS, but most legal scholars and analysts agree they have very little chance of success, as the UN instituted the program under the auspices of "a basic human right, not unlike the right to water, food, and shelter".

Think that's too extreme? Just wait.

They made a choice. Choices should be respected, regardless if we agree with it or not.

Barry Morris
01-20-2016, 05:36 AM
They made a choice. Choices should be respected, regardless if we agree with it or not.

Post 23.

RWGR
01-20-2016, 10:21 AM
. Of course it seems strange you refer to the UN as we'll be under Sharia Law before then.

The UN taking on more power is a much more realistic future scenario that Sharia Law taking over.

The so called skippery slope may be steep but it's short and what you suggest falls way below the bottom of the slope

Good point. Take abortion, for example. When it was legalized in the US in 1973 we were told it was going to be very rare, and never used as simply a birth control method. The fact ~90% of abortions are for mere birth control is a bit troubling. But, still.

Hans
01-20-2016, 05:50 PM
Post 23.

There was never a clear reply to post 23. So no.

Barry Morris
01-20-2016, 08:16 PM
There was never a clear reply to post 23. So no.

Indeed there was, Hans, as Bluesky noted.

Hans
01-20-2016, 08:49 PM
Noted without stating what that meant. He should learn to share more.

RWGR
01-21-2016, 04:59 PM
They made a choice. Choices should be respected, regardless if we agree with it or not.

If your child "makes a choice" to become a heroin addict are you going to respect that choice?

Respect isn't automatically granted to a choice. To do so is to play into a hedonistic, anything-goes culture. Those don't survive.

Hans
01-21-2016, 05:32 PM
So now we are comparing heroin addiction to euthanasia?
Why don't we just compare the final solution to euthanasia while we are at it.

RWGR
01-21-2016, 06:26 PM
Well, you said "choices should be respected". Did you mean "some choices should be respected"?

Hans
01-21-2016, 07:50 PM
If people would be addicted by choice, I would agree.
However, since you cannot choose an addiction, it is not a choice.

Bluesky
01-21-2016, 08:57 PM
When I choose to shoot heroin into my veins for the first time, it is a clear choice. And yes, volition is still involved once I am addicted. But the question is, should every choice be respected whether it be wholesome or destructive?

Hans
01-22-2016, 06:22 AM
So what you are saying is the heroin addicts "choice" should not be respected because they made "a bad choice"?
This means you are now determining for someone else what is a bad or a good choice based on your own interpretations of good and bad.

RWGR
01-22-2016, 09:10 AM
So what you are saying is the heroin addicts "choice" should not be respected because they made "a bad choice"?
This means you are now determining for someone else what is a bad or a good choice based on your own interpretations of good and bad.

Do you know anyone, outside of heroin dealers and drug lords, who believe heroin addiction is a good choice?

Bluesky
01-22-2016, 09:23 AM
Hans, regarding your use of the terms, BAD and GOOD. Please define these terms. Maybe then we can have a coherent conversation. And what do you mean by 'respect'?

The Chronic Liar
01-22-2016, 09:33 AM
Hans, regarding your use of the terms, BAD and GOOD. Please define these terms. Maybe then we can have a coherent conversation. And what do you mean by 'respect'?

You need a definition of bad and good? This is getting bad.

Barry Morris
01-22-2016, 10:29 AM
You need a definition of bad and good? This is getting bad.

He's debating with a guy who already has stated his lack of respect for driving laws. It might be interesting to see his definitions.

The Chronic Liar
01-22-2016, 10:41 AM
He's debating with a guy who already has stated his lack of respect for driving laws. It might be interesting to see his definitions.

For the sake of the conversation, I think we can assume Hans' definition of words should be stricken from the record and we should just use the definition of the average reasonable person.

Bluesky
01-22-2016, 10:42 AM
You need a definition of bad and good? This is getting bad.

What do you mean by that? ;)

The Chronic Liar
01-22-2016, 11:02 AM
What do you mean by that? ;)

LOL I realized it after I wrote it and thought maybe nobody would notice.

Bluesky
01-22-2016, 11:03 AM
LOL I realized it after I wrote it and thought maybe nobody would notice.

You're a card and don't even know it

Anapeg
01-22-2016, 01:48 PM
So what you are saying is the heroin addicts "choice" should not be respected because they made "a bad choice"?
This means you are now determining for someone else what is a bad or a good choice based on your own interpretations of good and bad.

Do you not think heroin addicts have made bad choices? If this is true you sir are in one Hell of a minority.

RWGR
01-22-2016, 04:49 PM
So what you are saying is the heroin addicts "choice" should not be respected because they made "a bad choice"?
This means you are now determining for someone else what is a bad or a good choice based on your own interpretations of good and bad.

You do realize you just made a value judgment of good or bad on my value judgment of good or bad?

BFLPE
01-22-2016, 10:20 PM
Good point. Take abortion, for example. When it was legalized in the US in 1973 we were told it was going to be very rare, and never used as simply a birth control method. The fact ~90% of abortions are for mere birth control is a bit troubling. But, still.hmm, you're older than I thought if you remember how it played out in '73.

You're comparing apples to oranges though. Abortion and euthanasia are very different issues.

The idea of state sanctioned suicide for someone burdened with debt is ridiculous. Sock would be proud of you.

It is a tough issue but when your best argument is to come up with silly sock type fantasies I graciously accept your white flag.

Hans
01-23-2016, 02:36 AM
Do you know anyone, outside of heroin dealers and drug lords, who believe heroin addiction is a good choice?

I never used the term "choice" with regards to heroin addiction. It was you who in post #54 used that term, and it was used again in post #58 as "a clear choice"

Now to answer your question: heroin addiction and addiction in general is a disease, not a choice.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/02/addiction-free-choice

Hans
01-23-2016, 02:39 AM
Hans, regarding your use of the terms, BAD and GOOD. Please define these terms. Maybe then we can have a coherent conversation. And what do you mean by 'respect'?

Well, should we respect heroin addicts, or should we just cast them aside and disrespect them "because they made a (bad) choice?

Good is positive, and bad is negative.

Hans
01-23-2016, 02:42 AM
He's debating with a guy who already has stated his lack of respect for driving laws. It might be interesting to see his definitions.

Driving laws change, pending on your location. Respect is a universal concept that applies regardless of your location.

RWGR
01-23-2016, 08:56 AM
hmm, you're older than I thought if you remember how it played out in '73.

Good point. But, maybe someday people will invent something called writing, and then books, and we'll be able to read how events and issues went down in history. But, until then ...

You're comparing apples to oranges though. Abortion and euthanasia are very different issues.

Another good point: one is taking a life, the other is taking a life.

The idea of state sanctioned suicide for someone burdened with debt is ridiculous. Sock would be proud of you.

At one time the thought that government would use its citizens taxpayer monies to kill the youngest in its society was considered ridiculous, too.

At one time.

It is a tough issue but when your best argument is to come up with silly sock type fantasies I graciously accept your white flag

Thanks for admitting you have no substantive rebuttal. We can wrap this one up.

RWGR
01-23-2016, 08:58 AM
I never used the term "choice" with regards to heroin addiction. It was you who in post #54 used that term, and it was used again in post #58 as "a clear choice"

Now to answer your question: heroin addiction and addiction in general is a disease, not a choice.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/02/addiction-free-choice

The why don't I have that disease?

Because I have not CHOSEN to try it.

No one knows they like heroin until they CHOOSE to try it.

BFLPE
01-23-2016, 09:55 AM
Good point. But, maybe someday people will invent something called writing, and then books, and we'll be able to read how events and issues went down in history. But, until then ...

We all know how history changes. The official line at the time may have been what you say but I'm sure many thought and said otherwise. I don't think many today buy your debt story though.

Another good point: one is taking a life, the other is taking a life.

mm hmm, certainly you can see the difference though. The unborn don't have the same rights as the living. To stop abortion would require new rights which the political environment isn't ready to provide. Likewise, sanctioned suicide for too much debt wouldn't fly. Never.

At one time the thought that government would use its citizens taxpayer monies to kill the youngest in its society was considered ridiculous, too.

At one time.


It's still ridiculous

RWGR
01-23-2016, 12:17 PM
Ridiculous, yet a reality.

Bluesky
01-23-2016, 04:14 PM
Here's a thought. What of jailed criminals who are lifers who ask to be euthanized, citing their condition as hopeless and irredeemable? Would the law give them this out and let them commit doctor assisted suicide?

Hans
01-23-2016, 08:48 PM
No, because in my opinion all lifers should be converted to death penalties and executed.
But that is just my personal opinion.

Hans
01-23-2016, 08:49 PM
The why don't I have that disease?

Because I have not CHOSEN to try it.

No one knows they like heroin until they CHOOSE to try it.

You cannot choose a disease. You can influence it and try to acquire it, but in the end you have no real choice in the matter.

Bluesky
01-23-2016, 10:34 PM
Hans, repeating something does not help. You must provide reason.

Anapeg
01-23-2016, 10:46 PM
Each and every person who has ever used any drug made the conscious choice to use the drug quite likely knowing full well the cost of those decisions. You are simply offering a person who put a rock in their own shoe a crutch to help them out and it won't fly. Not now, not ever. You are simply an enabler of the worst stripe.

RWGR
01-24-2016, 08:41 AM
You cannot choose a disease. You can influence it and try to acquire it, but in the end you have no real choice in the matter.

How do you know you are a victim of heroin unless you CHOOSE to try it???

I know people who do not touch a drop of alcohol, because they came from parents who were awful drinkers. Alcoholism is not a disease for them. Why? Because they did not CHOOSE to partake in it.

BFLPE
01-24-2016, 10:48 AM
Here's a thought. What of jailed criminals who are lifers who ask to be euthanized, citing their condition as hopeless and irredeemable? Would the law give them this out and let them commit doctor assisted suicide?I couldn't see that happening. Aside from the fact we rarely impose a true life sentence in Canada we treat our prisoners well. Though they have lost, temporarily in most cases, certain freedoms and rights their condition can't be considered hopeless.

Hans
01-24-2016, 04:30 PM
How do you know you are a victim of heroin unless you CHOOSE to try it???

I know people who do not touch a drop of alcohol, because they came from parents who were awful drinkers. Alcoholism is not a disease for them. Why? Because they did not CHOOSE to partake in it.

You are looking at this the wrong way. Let me explain.

1. You first have to look up the definition of the word "addiction". It will be defined by a dictionary as something along the lines of " compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal"
2. That tells us that when you CHOOSE to try it, it is not an addiction at that point. It is a choice. Even using it a few times is still a choice, not an addiction.
3. It becomes an addiction once you have a compulsive need for it and you form a habit of using it.
4. The link http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/02/addiction-free-choice explaining why drug addiction is not a choice but a disease will explain further why it is a disease. (It is an issue with the brain being affected by the drug, read the link).

Hans
01-24-2016, 04:32 PM
Hans, repeating something does not help. You must provide reason.

I don't understand why you keep using one of two liners.
Why don't you expound on what you mean by that, as in what I am repeating, what reason(s) I did not provide etc...

RWGR
01-24-2016, 04:43 PM
You are looking at this the wrong way. Let me explain.

1. You first have to look up the definition of the word "addiction". It will be defined by a dictionary as something along the lines of " compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal"
2. That tells us that when you CHOOSE to try it, it is not an addiction at that point. It is a choice. Even using it a few times is still a choice, not an addiction.
3. It becomes an addiction once you have a compulsive need for it and you form a habit of using it.
4. The link http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/02/addiction-free-choice explaining why drug addiction is not a choice but a disease will explain further why it is a disease. (It is an issue with the brain being affected by the drug, read the link).

So it's a choice fundamentally, as we've been saying

Hans
01-24-2016, 05:17 PM
No, it is a choice until it becomes an addiction, at which point it becomes a disease.
You and some others have been advocating it is because of that choice they initially made, they end up being addicted Therefore addiction is a choice and not a disease.
It is called putting the carriage before the horse.

Barry Morris
01-24-2016, 06:32 PM
No, it is a choice until it becomes an addiction, at which point it becomes a disease.
You and some others have been advocating it is because of that choice they initially made, they end up being addicted Therefore addiction is a choice and not a disease.
It is called putting the carriage before the horse.

Yet oddly enough, some people can choose to walk away from drugs.

Hardly possible with a disease.

Anapeg
01-24-2016, 10:25 PM
Yet oddly enough, some people can choose to walk away from drugs.

Hardly possible with a disease.

Don't confuse him with facts.

Hans
01-25-2016, 06:28 AM
Yet oddly enough, some people can choose to walk away from drugs.

Hardly possible with a disease.

Are you stating that people cannot get better when they catch a disease, because it is "hardly possible"? Hope you don't get a cold, hardly possible to walk away from that according to you.
Some walk away from drug addiction.
Your logic is flawed.

Anapeg
01-25-2016, 08:43 AM
Are you stating that people cannot get better when they catch a disease, because it is "hardly possible"? Hope you don't get a cold, hardly possible to walk away from that according to you.
Some walk away from drug addiction.
Your logic is flawed.

Conflating the common cold and say, cancer is your way of moving the goal posts with you silly circular arguing. This is why I often simply walk away from what had been an intelligent conversation until you start with this crap.

Barry Morris
01-25-2016, 09:01 AM
Are you stating that people cannot get better when they catch a disease, because it is "hardly possible"? Hope you don't get a cold, hardly possible to walk away from that according to you.
Some walk away from drug addiction.
Your logic is flawed.

Can't you read, Hans??

No wonder you can't debate.

Barry Morris
01-25-2016, 09:02 AM
Conflating the common cold and say, cancer is your way of moving the goal posts with you silly circular arguing. This is why I often simply walk away from what had been an intelligent conversation until you start with this crap.

Becoming freakin' unbelievable, ain't it!!

Barry Morris
01-25-2016, 09:16 AM
Possibly related:

http://www.northernlife.ca/mobile/displayarticle.aspx?id=103159

"....the Chief Coroner for Ontario, looked at 45 deaths in long-term care homes during that period, and found 13 cases classified as homicides."

Anapeg
01-25-2016, 10:15 AM
Possibly related:

http://www.northernlife.ca/mobile/displayarticle.aspx?id=103159

"....the Chief Coroner for Ontario, looked at 45 deaths in long-term care homes during that period, and found 13 cases classified as homicides."

As things stand right now many hospital deaths would be suspect. There is a dance takes place while someone is never leaving the hospital alive. It is a dance twixt the doctors and the patients family. The person designated as the head of the family pro tem assuming an elder is dying and the physician have a meeting. In the hall, off to the side. The doctor says I will phone you soon and I will say, "Your Mom is still in pain but if I give her any more medication it will kill her". You are schooled to answer "I want her in no pain please keep her comfortable". At this point, you will be asked if you and others wish to be there or say your goodbyes now and it is over.

Anapeg
01-25-2016, 10:15 AM
Becoming freakin' unbelievable, ain't it!!

The man is something to marvel at that is sure.

Hans
01-25-2016, 06:44 PM
I see, so drug addiction is not a disease but a choice according to you both?

Barry Morris
01-25-2016, 07:48 PM
I see, so drug addiction is not a disease but a choice according to you both?

I believe it is evidence of an underlying mental problem.

Ever heard the term "dry drunk"??

It is quite possible to walk away from drugs (or alcohol) and still suffer from the underlying causes.

So, no, addictions, in and of themselves, would not be a disease.

BFLPE
01-25-2016, 10:47 PM
Possibly related:umm, not sure how violence between old folks with dementia relates to Euthanasia.

Don't kid yourself though, 'mercy' killings do happen in our hospitals and old age homes. Due to the current rules most of them are a bit longer and more painful than what is humane but Euthanasia nonetheless.

Anapeg
01-25-2016, 11:17 PM
I see, so drug addiction is not a disease but a choice according to you both?

Absolutely. My Dad was a drunk. He had no disease, he had a weakness for alcohol. When the going got tough Dad got drunk. All you are doing is enabling these people to go ahead and do nothing other than steal and get stoned. You and others like you pat these people on the back and whisper there, there in their ear telling them it is not their fault they have a disease. Bull! They chose to use illegal drugs and then got hooked. They are little more than an anchor around the neck of productive society.

Hans
01-26-2016, 06:15 AM
Absolutely. My Dad was a drunk. He had no disease, he had a weakness for alcohol. When the going got tough Dad got drunk. All you are doing is enabling these people to go ahead and do nothing other than steal and get stoned. You and others like you pat these people on the back and whisper there, there in their ear telling them it is not their fault they have a disease. Bull! They chose to use illegal drugs and then got hooked. They are little more than an anchor around the neck of productive society.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/02/addiction-free-choice

So according to you, that website is wrong?
You should send them an e-mail, explaining how wrong they are.

Barry Morris
01-26-2016, 08:27 AM
See post 92, and Anapegs signature.

Anapeg
01-26-2016, 01:09 PM
http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/02/addiction-free-choice

So according to you, that website is wrong?
You should send them an e-mail, explaining how wrong they are.

Do I disagree with the wed sites stance? Vehemently! Will I let them know? No, they have a very lucrative position to maintain and one voice shouting into the wind is seldom if ever heard. Vive la différence, this is the sign of an adult. One notes the difference, files it away, then moves on. Simply reading something does not make it true. Now were the vast majority of studies against me, then common sense would dictate a rethink of my values. As yet there are well-educated people who are well thought of in the field who think as I so I am comfortable with my take on things, thank you so very much.

Hans
01-26-2016, 06:07 PM
As the famous RWGR would say: white flag accepted.

Anapeg
01-26-2016, 06:31 PM
As the famous RWGR would say: white flag accepted.

You are nothing if not exasperating Hans, to the unth degree.

RWGR
01-27-2016, 08:35 AM
As the famous RWGR would say: white flag accepted.


.
.
.
.

Hans
01-28-2016, 06:17 AM
True story, you are famous.

Barry Morris
04-07-2016, 04:50 AM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/canadian-doctor-describes-heartbreaking-case-that-convinced-him-euthanasia?utm_source=LifePetitions+petition+signe rs

A doctor who disagrees, and why.

Bluesky
04-07-2016, 05:44 AM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/canadian-doctor-describes-heartbreaking-case-that-convinced-him-euthanasia?utm_source=LifePetitions+petition+signe rs

A doctor who disagrees, and why.

Excellent piece. Thanks.

Anapeg
04-09-2016, 03:57 PM
The excellent article does nothing to change my mind. Because of two we make how many millions suffer unnecessarily? It is a personal choice. I am aware some thing might change but I am, without malice but with forethought and consultation asking for the "right" to end my life because I do not wish to hurt, prolong the inevitable and not to be a burden to my family. My choice! My right. Who are you or anyone for that matter to tell me I must endure pain and have my family watch me wither. Simply because it says it is wrong, in your Bible to end a life early why do I have to be guided by your Bible or your moral standing? As an agnostic I have no faith in standard religion and therefore, ought not to be held to religious dogmas.
Should an individual doctor wish to forego the taking of a life so be it. It is his right as it is my right to seek a painless death. There would be many others to fill the void. It happens today, right here in our two by twice little burg. Admitting this by the lawmakers would simply allow it to see the light of day, not to mention common sense and cease having good doctors put their career as well as their freedom in jeopardy.