1. #1
    Forum Member
    skyraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    601

    Default Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

    What do ya'll think of this??


    Posted 1/17/2006 10:13 AM Updated 1/17/2006 10:34 AM

    Supreme Court upholds Ore. suicide law
    WASHINGTON (AP) ó The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

    Ruth Gallaid from Eugene, Ore., who supports physician assisted suicide, protests in front of the Supreme Court on Oct. 5, 2005.
    Charles Dharapak, AP

    Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

    That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass rules for health and safety.

    But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people ó those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

    Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

    "The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects. The attorney general does not have the sole delegated authority under the (law)," Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

    Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

    Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

    "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

    The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

    Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

    Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

    Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.

    Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.

    Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.

    The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Good. I think that should be the law in every state. Maybe this will get the ball rolling.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Don't treat those that dont want to be treated, releave the pain but don't help speed up the process.
    I do not like the federal government trampling in when it should not, but Ashcroft's arguement that a prescription for an OD is not a "legitimate medical purpose" is surely valid.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace
    Don't treat those that dont want to be treated, releave the pain but don't help speed up the process.
    I do not like the federal government trampling in when it should not, but Ashcroft's arguement that a prescription for an OD is not a "legitimate medical purpose" is surely valid.
    It certainly is. More liberal culture of death.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    It certainly is. More liberal culture of death.
    What is what? Letting someone die with dignity while releaving the pain to the best degree possible is far different from speeding up the death process.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    There is a difference between dying with dignity and letting someone kill themselves.

    Did you ever notice that libs want to kill babies, old people, terminally ill people, but they don't want to kill serial killers or tree frogs?

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    There is a difference between dying with dignity and letting someone kill themselves.

    Did you ever notice that libs want to kill babies, old people, terminally ill people, but they don't want to kill serial killers or tree frogs?
    Only certain parts of the left feel that way. Ask a Catholic priest or nun and they will likely consider themselves pretty liberal, yet they will be opposed to killing anyone, crimminal or sick innocent. Where do you put them on the left/right chart?

    I am opposed to giving out a lethal dose for pretty much any reason, I am also opposed to standing in the way of letting a family pull the plug when hope has diminished. be that plug be a resporator, a pace maker or a feeding tube.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people ó those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.
    Not sure how anyone else thinks about this, but I am not really sure that any person who is given the "6 months or less" statement is going to much of sound mind.

    Of course I am taking that statement to the extreme, meaning that a person who was for all intents and purposes considered "healthy" until the med exam. I think I might be willing to defer to a person with a long term medical condition, who has lived with it for some while over someone very recently diagnosed.

    Now to really mess everyone up: Intrinsically I believe that it should be a personal choice made in conjunction with input and (hopefully) final agreement with the family. But only after all reasonable avenues have been either tried or been deemed as non-viable.

    Personally I hope to never be put in this position as either a patient or attending family member.
    If you don't do it RIGHT today, when will you have time to do it over? (Hall of Fame basketball player/coach John Wooden)

    "I may be slow, but my work is poor." Chief Dave Balding, MVFD

    "Its not Rocket Science. Just use a LITTLE imagination." (Me)

    Get it up. Get it on. Get it done!

    impossible solved cotidie. miracles postulo viginti - quattuor hora animadverto

    IACOJ member: Cheers, Play safe y'all.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7
    Not sure how anyone else thinks about this, but I am not really sure that any person who is given the "6 months or less" statement is going to much of sound mind.

    Of course I am taking that statement to the extreme, meaning that a person who was for all intents and purposes considered "healthy" until the med exam. I think I might be willing to defer to a person with a long term medical condition, who has lived with it for some while over someone very recently diagnosed.

    Now to really mess everyone up: Intrinsically I believe that it should be a personal choice made in conjunction with input and (hopefully) final agreement with the family. But only after all reasonable avenues have been either tried or been deemed as non-viable.

    Personally I hope to never be put in this position as either a patient or attending family member.
    One big problem with this is that doctors might be forced to go along with such wishes even if it is against their personal beliefs. It is one thing to force a strong Catholic pharmacist to distribute a prescription for birth control pills; it is a whole different realm to ask a strong Catholic Doctor to help kill his patient. Doctor hunting is frowned upon when it goes beyond
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Two points:

    1) George - You bash the Libs for being for abortion and everything else but the death penalty. Most Conservative viewpoints are against abortion but for the death penalty. Death is death. Life is life. Both sides need to take a stand and stop being a hypocrite.

    2) Six months is a vague time. My neighbor died of ALS. It strikes the body neurologically, but spares the mind completely.

    So how is assisted suicide different from hospice? It is making a person comfortable until death.

    Would I prescribe it for them in practice? No. But it is no different than "pulling the plug" based on prior wishes. Don't ever take my liberties away from me.

    Mind your own business. Now the conservatives in Congress want to pass federal legislation against it. Go screw and stop infringing on individual rights and liberties.

    As for me, I will live until I can no longer "live." My wife knows that, and she is of the same opinion. Don't anyone ever tell me how much pain and suffering (physically and mentally) myself and my family has to go through before I die. I'll fight you tooth and nail on it.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaSharkie
    Two points:

    1) George - You bash the Libs for being for abortion and everything else but the death penalty. Most Conservative viewpoints are against abortion but for the death penalty. Death is death. Life is life. Both sides need to take a stand and stop being a hypocrite.

    2) Six months is a vague time. My neighbor died of ALS. It strikes the body neurologically, but spares the mind completely.

    So how is assisted suicide different from hospice? It is making a person comfortable until death.
    Would I prescribe it for them in practice? No. But it is no different than "pulling the plug" based on prior wishes. Don't ever take my liberties away from me.

    Mind your own business. Now the conservatives in Congress want to pass federal legislation against it. Go screw and stop infringing on individual rights and liberties.

    As for me, I will live until I can no longer "live." My wife knows that, and she is of the same opinion. Don't anyone ever tell me how much pain and suffering (physically and mentally) myself and my family has to go through before I die. I'll fight you tooth and nail on it.
    Allowing some one to die in peace and helping to make them comfortable is one thing, speeding up the process and actively ending life is another.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    What about letting the doctors decide whether to kill a patient? It's happening in Great Britain and Switzerland. Kind of alleviates that nasty accounts recievable problem.

    Euthanasia Used in Less Than 1% of U.K. Deaths, Study Shows
    Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Euthanasia, the act of killing an individual to put an end to their suffering, is used in fewer than one percent of deaths in the U.K., where it is illegal, an academic study showed.

    About 0.16 percent of U.K. deaths in 2004 were caused by voluntary euthanasia, in which the patient requests death and the drug that causes it is administered by someone else, Clive Seale, Professor of Sociology at London's Brunel University, said in a paper published in January's Palliative Medicine journal. In 0.33 percent of deaths, involuntary euthanasia took place, in which patients who hadn't explicitly requested it were helped to die.

    The study is the first in-depth survey conducted in the U.K. into so-called end-of-life decisions, and it shows U.K. medical professionals prefer to alleviate suffering rather than end it by helping patients to die, Seale said in a statement posted yesterday on the university's Web site.

    ``This is the first time a nationally representative survey of end-of-life decisions taken by doctors in the UK has been done,'' Seale said. ``Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are understandably very emotive subjects, but this work shows that UK doctors are less willing to take such actions than in several other countries.''

    No cases of doctor-assisted suicide, in which the patient themselves administers the life-ending drug, were found by the study. Between October and December 2004, a random selection of 1,000 general practitioners and 1,000 hospital specialists was sent a postal questionnaire which they answered anonymously. 857 usable replies were returned. Doctors were asked only about their most recent patient-death.

    International Comparisons

    Doctors helped patients to die in about 5.12 percent of cases in the Netherlands, 2.78 percent of instances in Belgium, and more than 1 percent of deaths in both Denmark and Switzerland, according to the study. After adjusting the U.K. study to eliminate sudden deaths, which skewed the results, Seale said 0.54 percent of British deaths were aided by physicians. A total of 629 of the U.K. replies were used.

    Campaigners including members of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society have lobbied the U.K. government for years to allow critically-ill patients to choose the way in which they die.

    U.K. laws need to be changed ``to help take away the fear of the process of dying and to stop needless suffering,'' the society says on its Web site. ``We argue for honesty and transparency in end-of-life decision making, to better protect vulnerable people.''

    A total of 51 doctors wrote comments on their questionnaires, with 42 of them indicating support for current laws, according to the study.

    Crossing The Line

    ``I would be very concerned if doctors `helped' patients to end the patient's life,'' one doctor wrote, according to the study. ``I feel that if doctors cross the line, of helping patients to die we will destroy so much that is important in the profession.'' Other doctors said they oppose euthanasia on religious grounds.

    Some of the respondents disagreed, with one doctor writing: ``I understand that I am not always acting in strict accordance with the law. I am performing my duties to my patients to the very best of my abilities. I feel that the tighter the law becomes the more difficult it becomes to do this job caringly and compassionately.''

    Forms of medically assisted dying are legal in countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, according to the study. In the U.S., the Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the Bush administration overstepped its authority by trying to block an Oregon law that authorizes doctor-assisted suicide.

    Palliative Care

    Extrapolating the results of the U.K. survey's 857 responses, the 0.16 percent of patients who died because of voluntary euthanasia and the 0.33 percent killed by involuntary euthanasia would equate to about 2,865 of Britain's 584,791 deaths in 2004.

    In 32.8 percent of U.K. deaths, doctors treated patients to alleviate symptoms ``with possibly life-shortening effects,'' a figure similar to survey results of six other European countries, where the proportion ranged from 26.7 percent in Italy to 38.9 percent in Denmark. The other countries surveyed were Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.

    In 30.3 percent of U.K. cases, treatment was withheld or withdrawn, according to the study. That's more than in all but Switzerland of the other countries surveyed. In Italy, it occurred in just 5.6 percent of deaths, and in Switzerland, the proportion was 41.1 percent.

    ``We have a very strong ethos of providing excellent palliative care in the U.K., reflected in the finding that doctors in the U.K. are willing to make other kinds of decisions that prioritize the comfort of patients, without striving to preserve life at the cost of suffering,'' Seale said.
    As I said-culture of death.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    As I said-culture of death.
    How about a culture of dignity, which is the way I see it. Along with the government keeping its nose out of private, personal issues.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    If you have a properly written law with appropriate oversight is necessary.

    A culture of death does persist, but if you want life then you should be against abortion, assisted suicide (or whatever the catch phrase is), the death penalty, or any other variant that comes along. It crosses all manner of issues and if you are against people being assisted to die, then the death penalty is no different. Not trying to hijack a thread, I just find it a hypocritical stance.

    The study cited only correlates percentages of deaths, and if you read the last couple of paragraphs, there is 30% of the total from either not instituting life sustaining therapies or removal from those therapies. Are you against that? That is physician assisted death if you think about it.

    If a physician did give an overdose of medication and they did not wish to have it done, the license of the provider ought to be stripped immediately and criminal charges ought to be sought and jail time given. I will be the first one in line to prosecute that. This is a patient made choice, and no one else should make that decision for them.

    I understand my future role is to improve my patient's quality of life and aid them in their health issues, but who the hell am I (or anyone else) to tell a patient that "No, you will have to live with your bone cancer and all I can do is add another pain medication to the 3 others that you are on so that you are living, but don't know your wife is holding your hand."

    I have seen people die painfully slow and agonizing deaths that I have treated and that I have loved, and I can only carry on that correlation to my future patients.

    And if you really want a trip, you ought to see what medications are given to hospice patients when they are brought home to die. One syringe full (and they do receive a syringe) of the 2 big medications that they are given and the patient is dead. I guess that is "physician assisted suicide" too.
    Last edited by DaSharkie; 01-18-2006 at 08:37 PM.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,983

    Default

    I would have to agree with the Court. Death with dignity is just that. If I had six months left to live, then I should haev the right to decide when I can noo longer take the pain and suffering. If I have informed my relatives that I do not want to be kept alive by a machine, then I have the right to have my wishes respected. As I understand the law in Oregon, the doctor does not adminsister the medication. He provides it to the patient who has met all the criteria. The patient then chooses when or if he will take it.

    This is not about killing someone. or about suicide. It is about giving someone some measure of dignity when they have stopped living. Death is a deeply personal issue and one of individual civil liberities. No government has the right to intrude on those rights.

    oh wait, abortion... right to die......death with diginity... all of these are personal moral issues that should not be decided by the government. The Bush administration is intruding more and more in places it should not.
    Last edited by superchef; 01-19-2006 at 10:39 AM.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superchef
    Death is a deeply personal issue and one of individual civil liberities. No government has the right to intrude on thsoe rights.

    oh wait, abortion... right to die......death with diginity... all of these are personal moral issues that should not be decided by the government. The Bush administration is intruding more and more in places it should not.
    I couldnt have said it better myself.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Random thoughts:

    1. I am absolutely, 100% in favor of a person being able to control their own right to die with dignity. Their must be controls and limitations. If there isn't, you then make all suicides socially acceptable. In the case of a person with a terminal illness, if they decide on their own, in writing, in accordance with the law, that no extraordinary measures be taken to keep them alive and that appropriate measures should be taken to keep them comfortable and pain free, that si that person's individual right.

    2. "One time, 15 years ago, my brother's wife's best-friend's uncle over heard my wife tell someone that she didn't want to be kept alive" is bogus.

    3. No one, especially aphysician, should be permitted to inject a person who cannot speak for themself, with a substance to kill them. That is murder.

    4. The death penalty is a clearly seperate issue from assisted suicide. The death penalty is punsihment, that has been decided on by a jury. Then reviewed at all levels of the judicial and executive branches of the state government.

    5. Its not? Then how come if a prisoner says "Stop fighting, I want to die", the libs won't let it happen?

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Life is life. Doesn't matter either way.

    I agree that your wishes need to be verbalized and written prior to any move. If they are not you get some kind of nonsense about it like the three ring circus in Florida last year.

    The Oregon law is the physician writing a prescription for the patient that the patient takes on their own - they do not do it for them.

    The libs fight it because they believe that it is a "Cruel and Unusual" punishment. And the Hollyweirdos and big time protestors only fight it when race or some other touchy feely issue like "Tookie" out in California last month. Yet they scream about a 13 year old girl not being able to get an abortion without notifying mommy and daddy. Total hypocracy.

    Just as it just as hypocratic that the all of the conservatives come out ranting and raving about Terry Schiavo, but not about an 11 year old girl in Massachusetts whose father abused her and put her into a brain-dead state. The state wants to remove the life support, but her father who beat her to brain death wants her to remain on life support because "he loves her." Yet, if she dies when the life support is removed, the state can get him for murder. Where is the outcry there?

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...tstruggle.html

    http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?qu...Key=Ask+Jeeves

    Complete and total hypocracy that is on both sides of the aisle. I abhor hypocracy regardless of its source.

    I also agree that the death penalty is a punishment, but the conservative extremists need to figure out that it is not a deterrent. Some criminal is not going to think about not commiting a crime because he could get the death penalty. Otherwise Lacy Peterson and all of the others would not have been murdered. That is just a lack of logic.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    An 11 yoa girl cannot make decisions for herself. Those decisions aer left for her parents. As far as what I could read on that issue, her mother made the decision to end the extraordinary measures. I was also under the impression that the offender was her stepfather, not her father.

    As far as the death penalty not being a deterent, so what? ALthough I think it is, it makes no difference to me if it is or not.It is a punishment. You kill someone, you should be punished. You commit the ultimate crmie, you should recieve the ultimate punishment.

    In NJ, my 10 yoa daughter cannot get her ears pierced w/o parental consent. However, if she gets pregnant, the liobs would defend to the death her right to have an abortion w/o notifying my wife or myself. You;re right. It is hypocritical.

  20. #20
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    This is not about killing someone. or about suicide. It is about giving someone some measure of dignity when they have stopped living. Death is a deeply personal issue and one of individual civil liberities. No government has the right to intrude on those rights.
    It absolutely is about killing someone; it is about ending a personís life before they die naturally. Why have counselors to prevent suicide then? Just let them up and do it; it is what they want after all.
    The next time were sent to some jack ***** ready to jump off a bridge because they are sad, letís push him; after all, were just ďassisting ďtheir suicide.
    Do you know anyone who has a child with Down syndrome? How about we end that childís misery, they have no quality of life, they contribute nothing to society, let's help them along and ďassistĒ them with suicide.
    Elderly people are old, letís get rid of them, as well. They donít even work, heck; they will die eventually, letís just help them along. You know, speed up the process a bit.

    Your right, the morals of this country is completely screwed up. I still put a value on human life.
    Where is the line drawn?
    Last edited by jasper45; 01-19-2006 at 09:44 PM.

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45
    It absolutely is about killing someone; it is about ending a personís life before they die naturally. Why have counselors to prevent suicide then? Just let them up and do it; it is what they want after all.
    The next time were sent to some jack ***** ready to jump off a bridge because they are sad, letís push him; after all, were just ďassisting ďtheir suicide.
    Do you know anyone who has a child with Down syndrome? How about we end that childís misery, they have no quality of life, they contribute nothing to society, let's help them along and ďassistĒ them with suicide.
    Elderly people are old, letís get rid of them, as well. They donít even work, heck; they will die eventually, letís just help them along. You know, speed up the process a bit.

    Your right, the morals of this country is completely screwed up. I still put a value on human life.
    Where is the line drawn?
    You got something here, I think. Just imagine how you could solve the SS problem and the Medicare problem. Over 65 and sick? Thanks for stopping by. Here's a lovely parting gift.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    236

    Default

    More liberal culture of death

    More consevative b.s.

    Lets send them to Iraq and then maybe Iran

    So much better for the young and healthy to die than for the old and infirm to die with some dignity
    Last edited by SamuelFire; 01-24-2006 at 12:32 PM.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SamuelFire
    More liberal culture of death

    More consevative b.s.

    Lets send them to Iraq and then maybe Iran

    So much better for the young and healthy to die than for the old and infirm to die with some dignity
    Thanks for a post that contained nothing but drivel and nonsense.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. HOUSTON walked away from this contract
    By Firewalker1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 12:34 AM
  2. Fire officials applaud nightclub sprinkler law
    By stm4710 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-20-2004, 04:47 AM
  3. State Supreme Court News
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Wisconsin
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-04-2003, 01:24 AM
  4. Court: Rural fire department has immunity against negligence
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-22-2003, 10:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register