Assisted Suicide or Compassion and Dignity?

[Terry Penrod]

.

I have long felt that people suffering intolerable pain and anguish from horrible, incurable diseases and severe injury should not only be allowed to die with dignity, but also be assisted by qualified physicians and other caring individuals.

The following story is about one American group dedicated to carrying out that mission in what appears to be a very compassionate and selfless way. The government however wants to throw them in prison. IMO, they deserve medals not convict ID tags.

Cheers, Terry

Group probed for helping people die defends work

By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA – As authorities try to determine how many deaths nationwide may be linked to an alleged assisted suicide ring, members of the group known as the Final Exit Network are defending a mission they call "self-deliverance."

The network's president, its medical director and two other members were charged Wednesday in the death of John Celmer, a 58-year-old Georgia man who suffered for years from cancer of the throat and mouth. They each face up to five years in prison if convicted on assisted suicide charges.

Members bristle at the term assisted suicide, saying they don't play an active role in a person's death, but rather support and guide those who decide to end their lives on their own. Authorities say new members pay a $50 fee and are vetted through an application process.

Those seeking to end their lives are assigned a guide who instructs them to purchase two new helium tanks and a hood, known as an "exit bag." Authorities say it's consistent with the way Celmer died — suffocation due to inhalation.

When the member is ready, authorities said, he or she is visited by the exit guide and a senior exit guide to lead them through the process.

"We're just there to help," said Jerry Dincin, vice president of the 3,000-member Final Exit Network, who was not among those arrested. "People insist upon it. They want to do what they want to do. They're suffering, and if they have intolerable pain, then they want to sometimes get out of that intolerable pain."

Celmer's mother, Betty, said he had undergone extensive surgery and had several more rounds to go. She contends group members shouldn't face charges if they helped her son.

"If they helped John to die, that is what he wanted," she said. "I would never find them guilty for helping him."

A search warrant filed in DeKalb County said that agents interviewing Celmer's doctor were told he was cancer free at the time of his death and that he was making a "remarkable recovery."

Agents were told he was still in pain due to arthritis, but it could have been lessened if he took his medication properly and stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, according to the warrant.

The network is at the center of a wide-ranging investigation that led to raids in nine states this week.

It wasn't immediately clear how many other deaths are being investigated. Authorities in Arizona said they were looking into whether the group helped a Phoenix woman die in April 2007.

Authorities there and in Georgia said search warrants were executed at 14 sites in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Montana.

Group members Thomas E. Goodwin, identified as the organization's president, and Claire Blehr were arrested Wednesday at a home in northern Georgia in connection with Celmer's death in Cumming, about 35 miles north of Atlanta, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said. The arrests came after a sting operation in which an undercover agent posed as a member of the group.

The pair were scheduled to make a first court appearance Friday. Maryland authorities arrested the organization's medical director, Dr. Lawrence D. Egbert, 81, of Baltimore, and Nicholas Alec Sheridan, a Baltimore man who is a regional coordinator for the group. They were scheduled for an extradition hearing Friday.

In addition to assisted suicide, the four were charged with tampering with evidence and a violation of Georgia's anti-racketeering act.

In an interview, Dincin called the arrests "ridiculous" but acknowledged he could be next. He said network members are encouraged to order "The Final Exit," a best-selling book that outlines how they can end their lives through "self-deliverance," described as the practice of taking one's own life to escape suffering.

"This method does not involve any other person directly, although a loved one or friend should ideally be present," an excerpt read. "It is legal in all respects, and widely accepted ethically."

But Georgia authorities say the group violated Georgia law, which defines assisted suicide as anyone publicly advertising or offering to "intentionally and actively assist another person."

Dincin said his group will fight the charges in court.

"We just hold their hand," he said. "We're there for them for support — they read the information, they purchase the materials if that's what they want to do."

FROM: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_re_us/assisted_suicide_ring

[pcfreak]

One thing I don't get, how is death by suffocation showing dignity and compassion? When I used to work as a hospital porter in the mid 90's, I saw my fair share of corpses, and those who died by suffocation didn't look like they died peacefully.

I think that terminally ill patients should have the right to decide how they will die, but any group like the one mentioned in the report should not be allowed to exist. What procedures do they follow before giving out advice? Do they seek expert medical advice, or are they in a position to give it? Do they consult the patients family? I also find it worrying that they have published a book on this topic.

What is to say that people who are depressed and suicidal and are not terminally ill don't take the advice offered in this book or the advice offered by this group's members? If assisted suicide is to become a legal reality, then it needs to be strictly governed and overseen by some authority.

[Mighty Pirate]

Interesting topic and one that will continue to be discussed in the coming decades as the world population rises.

I like to think that if I was suffering intolerable pain, or had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's like my father, that I'd end it all before it got too bad.

But I feel my 30 yr old niece who has tried to kill herself three times needs help to live, not die. How do we determine who should be allowed to make these decisions? Tricky issue.

[Terry Penrod]

.

One thing I don't get, how is death by suffocation showing dignity and compassion? When I used to work as a hospital porter in the mid 90's, I saw my fair share of corpses, and those who died by suffocation didn't look like they died peacefully.

I think that terminally ill patients should have the right to decide how they will die, but any group like the one mentioned in the report should not be allowed to exist. What procedures do they follow before giving out advice? Do they seek expert medical advice, or are they in a position to give it? Do they consult the patients family? I also find it worrying that they have published a book on this topic.

What is to say that people who are depressed and suicidal and are not terminally ill don't take the advice offered in this book or the advice offered by this group's members? If assisted suicide is to become a legal reality, then it needs to be strictly governed and overseen by some authority.

I understand your concerns Stuart and mostly share them.

But in the case of the Final Exit Network, they appear to be quite sincere. More importantly, their board of directors and advisory board include a number of highly qualified people with strong backgrounds in legitimate medicine, psychology, caregiving and related fields. Also, they have a very strict criteria for who qets accepted into the program.

http://www.finalexitnetwork.org

Regarding the book titled Final Exit, it is also readily available through Amazon.com and other sellers along with the author's (Derek J. Humphry's) many other writings on this subject. All of them are perfectly legal and IMO should not in any way be censored.

http://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Third-Practicalities-Self-Deliverance/dp/0385336535

To better understand his motivation for all of this, you might want to read his own wife's story in the author's book titled Jean's Way: A Love Story. She was terminally ill with cancer, close to death and "arranged to hasten the end of her life with the aid of her husband of 22 years".

We can only imagine the impact that had on him and why he now feels so strongly about this issue.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

Interesting topic and one that will continue to be discussed in the coming decades as the world population rises.

I like to think that if I was suffering intolerable pain, or had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's like my father, that I'd end it all before it got too bad.

But I feel my 30 yr old niece who has tried to kill herself three times needs help to live, not die. How do we determine who should be allowed to make these decisions? Tricky issue.

We as a society should not be promoting suicide for anyone suffering from curable illnesses like depression, Caroline. But we should not outlaw all humane assisted suicides - let alone information about it - for patients that are in hopeless situations due to incurable ailments. We can not allow ourselves to completely turn our backs on them simply because that same information might be used by a non-terminal suicidal person.

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

Terry, we had this conversation back at Avault on teh Terry Schivo case. To let a person in that case die but the removal of nutrition to allow the body die is ok but the same person is given a toxic cocktail to allow them to pass on in peace is murder. In some instances it would be more human to assist a person and not allow a person to suffer, much less the family.

[Rob]

but the same person is given a toxic cocktail to allow them to pass on in peace is murder. Is it murder when they want it? What is the difference between giving them a toxic cocktail or them putting a shotgun to their head?

I am sorry for your loss Mighty Pirate, Alzheimer's has already hit my family and I fear my mom is getting it to so I understand.

[Terry Penrod]

.

The Terri Schiavo case was about a comatose woman that could not possibly be aware of the legal battle or media fury surrounding her fate and who - according to virtually all qualified medical experts - could feel neither mental anguish nor physical pain. Her ex-husband claimed that she very specifically told him NOT to artificially extend her life if she ever fell into that kind of permanent vegetative state.

If you believe him, then you must also see that all the court did was to grant her sincerely expressed wish. If you do not believe him, then you no doubt have serious questions about his motives. Either way, it is over.

That infamous case aside, in this thread we are discussing fully conscious adults that feel very real, constant, extreme pain and mental anguish. More importantly, it is their personal and well-informed decision to die with dignity. Refusing them that right (whatever it involves) IMO is the single most grotesque, cruelest form of personal invasion possible. It even transcends most premeditated murders because it sentences a truly helpless yet completely aware person to incredible suffering and hopelessness specifically against their will.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

Is it murder when they want it? What is the difference between giving them a toxic cocktail or them putting a shotgun to their head?

I am sorry for your loss Mighty Pirate, Alzheimer's has already hit my family and I fear my mom is getting it to so I understand.

By legal, technical and dictionary definition assisted suicide is NOT murder, because the act is not done with malice. Moreover, it is done with the full knowledge, agreement, blessing and (usually active) participation of the "victim".

On a personal note Rob, I'm saddened to hear that your mom may be falling victim to that awful disease. Has she been properly diagnosed with Alzheimer's yet? If not, below is a link to 10 signs or symptoms followed by a side-by-side comparison of five symptoms of normal aging.

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_10_signs_of_alzheimers.asp

The above web site also has pages on diagnosis, treatment, specific stages, living with Alzheimer's, and related dementias. If your mom does not show all the classic signs but displays more severe symptons than those of normal aging, she could be suffering from one of the latter conditions. In any case, the first step would be to get her diagnosed by a qualified physician so she can begin receiving the right kind of help.

While there is no cure for Alzheimer's, there are some effective medicines that can ease the symptoms and a number of things you can do to help. These are outlined in detail on the Treatments / Standard Treatments page under the heading "Non-drug approaches". There are also pages on Vitamin E Treatment, Treatments for Sleep Changes, and Alternative Treatments that you might find helpful.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

My father ticked all of those Alzheimer's boxes.

He was originally diagnosed with vascular dementia in his mid-60s and that was attributed to his smoking habit which he'd kicked 20 years ago. But then it got a lot worse so we often wondered if he had them both.

The family has a swag of 'funny Granddad' stories of his odd and bizarre behaviour. Inappropriate public nudity takes some management let me tell you. LOL

Mood swings. Oh boy, one year he cancelled the family gathering for Xmas lunch at 11am. Then he left the house (this was while he was still driving) and stayed out all day. Another time he got cross with my sons and locked us all out of the house but into the back garden with the swimming pool. Luckily we got one boy over the spiked gates so he could walk home (semi naked) and get help. :yes:

And the wandering off and getting lost.... boy did he get us all mobilised searching the neighbourhood with the police.

And the language skills - he couldn't recognise familiar words and got annoyed and accused us of deliberately speaking gibberish.

Paranoia - oh definitely. His hearing deteriorated (attributed to his smoking) so he accused everyone of talking about him whenever he couldn't follow the conversation. And 'they' were bugging his phone and watching his mail.

Hours in front of the TV - you think that's bad. Eventually he couldn't follow the story so the sound stayed off, then he didn't even turn the picture on but still he sat in front of it.

Self-care. Forget it. They become like babies, need to be spoon fed, complete with nappies and no concept of what is happening to them. On the upside, after a certain stage, this no longer distresses them and they become biddable and therefore easier to manage.

It is horrible and every time I forget a word or misplace something an imp inside my brain says 'maybe this is the beginning....?' :scared:

[cci]

There is no dignity in killing oneself. There is no difference and dignity in the method or action taken to end one's life be it the "exit bag," jumping off some cliff, stepping in the way of some train or simply shooting oneself in the head --- the result is the same; suicide is the easy way out.

Now I've seen my share of personal and family suffering but it still does not justify the killing of oneself --- ever. Life is a cross full of various trials and tribulations regardless of what station in life we belong to --- deal with it. I have more of the utmost respect for those who face such trials bravely, together with their families (now, that is dignity), than with those who choose the easy way out.

[Rob]

The easy way out... that is such a difficult statement to ever put on anyone. This of course is another hotly contested debate with battle lines on each side. But I feel if someone wants to end their life and is of sound mind, they should have that right. I guess another question is why shouldn't they have that right?

[cci]

.



By legal, technical and dictionary definition assisted suicide is NOT murder, because the act is not done with malice. Moreover, it is done with the full knowledge, agreement, blessing and (usually active) participation of the "victim".


I personally do not agree with this assessment simply because suicide from the Latin, suicidium, from sui caedere, to kill oneself, is an intentional act of wilful malice against oneself. It is wilful malice against oneself as you said above: "it is done with the full knowledge, agreement, blessing and (usually active) participation of the "victim". "

[cci]

The easy way out... that is such a difficult statement to ever put on anyone. This of course is another hotly contested debate with battle lines on each side.

I agree.

But I feel if someone wants to end their life and is of sound mind, they should have that right. I guess another question is why shouldn't they have that right?

You refer to the "right" but I directly address the act of suicide itself and that is where the proponents and opponents of suicide will argue their points from. As far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to take their life, much less another for that matter.

[pcfreak]

But who are you or I to tell another person what they can or can't do with their own lives? We simply do not have the right to tell someone that they must keep living. Why should we force our own opinions on others?

[cci]

But who are you or I to tell another person what they can or can't do with their own lives? We simply do not have the right to tell someone that they must keep living. Why should we force our own opinions on others?

So by your train of thought then, by way of example, should you and I see someone about to jump from a bridge, jump in front of an incoming train, or shoot oneself in the head, we should just let them because we do not have the right to tell them they must keep living and we should not force our opinion upon others?

[pcfreak]

If someone is determined enough to end their own life, they will do it. If I saw someone about to jump off a bridge or ssomething, then yes I would try to stop them. That would be my gut reaction. But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who are terminally ill and suffering. You and I are not in that position so how can we say that they are wrong for wanting to end their lives quickly?

If I was terminally ill, and had months to live, I would not want my children to see me suffering and have that lasting image for the rest of their lives. What makes you right for saying I couldnt do this?

[Rob]

As far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to take their life, much less another for that matter. It is their life, again, who says they do not have the right to end it? I have the right to try to convince them otherwise but nobody should have the right to force them not to.

should you and I see someone about to jump from a bridge, jump in front of an incoming train, or shoot oneself in the head, we should just let them because we do not have the right to tell them they must keep living and we should not force our opinion upon others? Nobody ever said you do not have the right to tell them they should keep living, that is expressing an opinion but not enforcing action.

[Terry Penrod]

.

It is not right or just or humane to force a terminally ill patient who is suffering extreme physical pain and mental anguish to keep living under those dreadful conditions specifically against their will. Doing so is an act of brutality unlike any other.

Here again, the organization mentioned in the article I cited above ONLY deals with adults of sound mind who meet those terrible medical criteria. Telling them they can not under any circumstances take their own lives to stop the pain and anguish - simply because some people are too dense to wrap their heads around it - is a horrific legal atrocity. It is also an insidious affront to compassion at every level.

Cheers, Terry

[cci]

If someone is determined enough to end their own life, they will do it.

Agreed.

If I saw someone about to jump off a bridge or ssomething, then yes I would try to stop them. That would be my gut reaction.

Likewise.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who are terminally ill and suffering.

In the end, we are essentially talking about suicide regardless if they are terminally ill or not.

You and I are not in that position so how can we say that they are wrong for wanting to end their lives quickly?

Seriously, where is the dignity in killing oneself regardless of what method is used? The result is still the same --- death by suicide.

Values, ethics, mores I suppose are called into question here. They differ for individuals, I recognize this very fact.

If I was terminally ill, and had months to live, I would not want my children to see me suffering and have that lasting image for the rest of their lives. What makes you right for saying I couldnt do this?

What and who makes it right who say assisted suicide is the right and "humane" thing to do for terminally ill individuals?

[cci]

It is their life, again, who says they do not have the right to end it? I have the right to try to convince them otherwise but nobody should have the right to force them not to.

Realistically speaking, our life is not our own, nor is the life of our parents their own and so on. We were all given life and that life has been transmitted from one generation to the next. If we are not the author of our own life, and we are not, who are we and what right do we have to take it from our selves?


Nobody ever said you do not have the right to tell them they should keep living, that is expressing an opinion but not enforcing action.

True enough.

[cci]

.

It is not right or just or humane to force a terminally ill patient who is suffering extreme physical pain and mental anguish to keep living under those dreadful conditions specifically against their will. Doing so is an act of brutality unlike any other.

Life is what it is. So is life right, just, humane? Suicide is not the answer. I can argue that suicide is an act of brutality on oneself.

Here again, the organization mentioned in the article I cited above ONLY deals with adults of sound mind who meet those terrible medical criteria. Telling them they can not under any circumstances take their own lives to stop the pain and anguish - simply because some people are too dense to wrap their heads around it - is a horrific legal atrocity. It is also an insidious affront to compassion at every level.

The only legal atrocity is allowing assisted suicide in my mind. I personally don't view someone assisting someone to kill themselves as an act of "compassion."

[Rob]

Realistically speaking, our life is not our own, nor is that of our parents and so on. We were all given life and that life has been transmitted from one generation to the next. If we are not the author of our own life, and we are not, who are we and what right do we have to take it from our selves? The word "ourselves" sums it up. And if you are right about it not being our life then our parents would have 100% control of us from birth to death, including abortion for that matter, since hey, it is their life, they made it, they can destroy it since they are the authors.

I personally don't view someone assisting someone to kill themselves as an act of "compassion." Why?

[cci]

The word "ourselves" sums it up. And if you are right about it not being our life then our parents would have 100% control of us from birth to death, including abortion for that matter, since hey, it is their life, they made it, they can destroy it since they are the authors.

You may have overlooked the part where I stated (the underlined portion) that "Realistically speaking, our life is not our own, nor is that of our parents and so on."

Ahh, I see... I meant to originally say that our parents' life are also not their own. I will change my post above.

Why?

Simply because it involves the act of the assistance killing of another's life.

[Rob]

You may have overlooked the part where I stated (the underlined portion) that "Realistically speaking, our life is not our own, nor is that of our parents and so on." I saw it, I was just taking an over exaggeration to make a point. It is my life, it is my life with which to choose my career, my thoughts, my morals, my interactions and my everyday activities. All of this is my choice of how to live my life, I fail to see how the decision to die is no longer mine.

Simply because it involves the act of the assistance killing of another's life. Fine line, but there is one between suicide and killing another person. Assisting is helping the person die in a humane way, not murdering someone for some other intent. The fine line is choice, and that is the choice of the person who is dying.

[cci]

I saw it, I was just taking an over exaggeration to make a point. It is my life, it is my life with which to choose my career, my thoughts, my morals, my interactions and my everyday activities. All of this is my choice of how to live my life, I fail to see how the decision to die is no longer mine.

I never argued the decision of how to die is not ours to determine. We still have our free will but using that free will responsibly is called into question here based on our values, mores, etc.

Fine line, but there is one between suicide and killing another person. Assisting is helping the person die in a humane way, not murdering someone for some other intent. The fine line is choice, and that is the choice of the person who is dying.

Suicide still involves killing --- the end of life --- no matter how you look at it or how it's done --- death ensues.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I seriously doubt that anyone here does not understand exactly what suicide means or that it is an awful thing.

What I question is lumping all suicidal people into the same self-righteous moral boat.

We here in this thread (that I personally started) are NOT talking about individuals who simply suffer from depression and choose to give up. We are discussing people in extreme, prolonged physical pain and mental anguish. People that have no hope of recovery who are adults of sound mind that for one reason or another can not end their own lives without assistance.

I hope our society can come to grips with just how nightmarish life is for these patients, get off its rigidly stubborn, high moral horse and change the laws governing these very specific cases.

Applying broad strokes to this issue and standing on general principles can accomplish on and only one thing - to continue sentencing innocent human beings to suffer needlessly to the extreme and very much against their free will.

Cheers, Terry

[cci]

.


What I question is lumping all suicidal people into the same self-righteous moral boat.

We here in this thread (that I personally started) are NOT talking about individuals who simply suffer from depression and choose to give up. We are discussing people in extreme, prolonged physical pain and mental anguish. People that have no hope of recovery who are adults of sound mind that for one reason or another can not end their own lives without assistance.

I question the moral, social, ethical, legal implications here. If one can make this assisted suicide legal, why should it stop there? Hell, make suicide legal for everyone.

Rob mentioned abortion above which reminded of an article I read that was written in the late 60s I believe that opposed said issue. It argued that if abortion is allowed and made legal, soon, the doors to euthanasia will follow because life will no longer be viewed as being sacred to each and every individual; it argued correctly. The point I'm making here is that legalizing assisted suicide, no matter what worst-case scenario it involves, will open up othere issues that suicide brings along with it.

I hope our society can come to grips with just how nightmarish life is for these patients, get off its rigidly stubborn, high moral horse and change the laws governing these very specific cases.

That is your opinion and belief of course. One can argue the immorality of said issue and the stubborness of those who hold such views and opinions.

Applying broad strokes to this issue and standing on general principles can accomplish on and only one thing - to continue sentencing innocent human beings to suffer needlessly to the extreme and very much against their free will.

No one is innocent here. Like I said, Life is what it is. There is purpose to everything and that includes suffering in my own personal experience. Life would not be life without the bitter and the sweet.

[Mighty Pirate]

So cci doesn’t think we own ourselves….. we’re just renting these bodies then, eh? Next time I think I’d like to pay the extra and rent one like Catherine Zeta-Jones. :D:

Seriously, the notion that life is sacred and we have no right to alter its trajectory at all becomes confusing when I ask myself these simple questions. Perhaps cci has the answers.

Medical assistance in suicide is interfering – but is permitted when it preserves the living body? Who determines what level is permitted – medicines, surgery, transplants, artificial bits and pieces, genetic manipulation?

Is the life of a human being any more special than an animal? Is it okay to kill a chimpanzee or an elephant even though we know these animals have family relationships and experience emotions like us?

If all human life is sacred and a gift, then how do we explain all the millions of miscarriages in the world? I have been on the receiving of several of those shonky gifts myself.... :(:

As death is inevitable why is it so important to preserve our physical existence for as long as possible? What difference can it make to the universe if we live 20 or 200 years, in pain or good health, die in bed or are killed on the battlefield?

As cci is so determined that suicide is wrong under any circumstances how would he judge a person who knowingly sacrifices his own life to save another or to further a cause? Some of these people we call terrorists and some we call war heroes. All are dead by their own choices.

Cci states that we don’t have the right… etc. If not from our own deliberations then where do our rights come from?

[Mikell]

There are a lot of moral choices that don't fit in with some laws.
Is it humane to give an inmate a double bypass surgery to save his life, and then execute them?

Some propose forcibly castrating sex offenders. Is this moral and right?
I have my own opinions on these things but it would be unlawful.

[chip5541]

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/02/morris_washington_euthanasia/

Wahington takes steps toward euthanasia

But if we scratch the surface, the whole scenario starts to get very messy. First, the new Washington law prohibits doctors from documenting their patient’s real cause of death if it is from doctor-prescribed drugs — even when they are certain the patient has taken them. Instead, doctors must certify the cause of death as the patient’s original illness. Yes, in Washington, what rational people would consider malpractice–lying about the cause of death–is now required by law.

This is a perfect example of the Machiavellian politics surrounding state laws that oblige citizens to subject truth (in this case medical science) to convenience, for whatever sordid reason. According to the law’s supporters, the reason for this measure is to protect a patient’s right to privacy (apparently, an absolute right that in this case trumps even transparency). As it turns out, this stipulation in the law makes things very convenient for the of the euthanasia movement. Without this end-of-life documentation, it is impossible to produce definitive data about how many people will have used doctor-prescribed drugs to end their lives in the Evergreen State.

The second great reason for concern is the increasing financial benefits assisted suicide laws provide to strapped state budgets and to HMOs. Even before our current financial crisis, there was already evidence that patients in Oregon had been offered free suicide drugs as a less costly alternative to expensive healing or palliative medicines. A case in point was Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Oregon resident, who was informed last May that her cancer had returned. Her doctor prescribed a new drug that could extend her life, but Oregon’s Medicaid program sent her a form letter saying it would not cover the cost of the drugs. In the same unsigned letter she was also offered information about an affordable alternative: Medicaid would cover “comfort care”, including “physician aid in dying” (the lethal drugs would have cost the state less than $100). Barbara died in October, but first left this moving video, pleading with the voters of Washington state not to let the same thing happen to them. Eventually, the director of Oregon’s Medicaid program admitted the organization sends such letters to patients whom they think have little chance of surviving.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I question the moral, social, ethical, legal implications here. If one can make this assisted suicide legal, why should it stop there? Hell, make suicide legal for everyone.

Rob mentioned abortion above which reminded of an article I read that was written in the late 60s I believe that opposed said issue. It argued that if abortion is allowed and made legal, soon, the doors to euthanasia will follow because life will no longer be viewed as being sacred to each and every individual; it argued correctly. The point I'm making here is that legalizing assisted suicide, no matter what worst-case scenario it involves, will open up othere issues that suicide brings along with it.

Inflexible, slippery-slope, one-moral-size-fits-all thinking at its best.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

There are a lot of moral choices that don't fit in with some laws.

Is it humane to give an inmate a double bypass surgery to save his life, and then execute them?

Some propose forcibly castrating sex offenders. Is this moral and right?
I have my own opinions on these things but it would be unlawful.

I assume you didn't mean that your opinions or simply expressing them would be illegal Mikell.

Cheers, Terry

[D.evina]

oh God... Kark... this is a horrible situation... i dont even know where to start...
Ok, first of all... it is not your fault that your friend commited suicide, he had made up his mind no matter what u would of done. I have a friend, my best male friend... he is a very depresive person, and some years ago he tryed to kill himself too... he was feeling lonely and had issues going on in his life, i was the last one to talk to him, but no matter what i or anybody else would say to him every day, he did it anyways and took some pills. Luckyly his mother found him on time and call for help. When somebody is decided to do such thing, they dont think twice.

About this other friend who is thinking about doing the same, i´d say..talk to her parents if u see something strange, like her unusual happiness... so they are aware of what´s going on, this way maybe they can have a closer eye on her.... depression is a very hard nightmare to get out of... but it is not imposible... time is a healer .... it will not make u forget, but it will make u accept things and life, better... if only she could see that... the only thing she needs is a little hope, something that makes her come back to her old self again.... cuz now she is lost, blind by her sadness....

I seriously wish i could help u better, im sorry if i cant do more..... hope everything goes ok with u and your friends....

hugs

[RHooks]

Only two things to offer here. A person that wishes to end their own life is not in their "right" mind.

I'm not aware of any way to measure "intent" in humans. You have to take their word for it. Go kill a neighbor and tell the judge and jury that you did it with the best of intentions and see how that works out for you.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Only two things to offer here. A person that wishes to end their own life is not in their "right" mind.

I'm not aware of any way to measure "intent" in humans. You have to take their word for it. Go kill a neighbor and tell the judge and jury that you did it with the best of intentions and see how that works out for you.

I think there are some cases where choosing to end one's life is the saddest yet sanest decision a person can make.

Also, proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is done in cases every day to determine whether or not a harmful act was purposeful with malice aforethought, accidental or due to negligence. As a matter of fact, intent is the cornerstone of most justice systems.

Cheers, Terry

[RHooks]

Do you know why torture is an ineffective means of interrogation?

[Terry Penrod]

.

Do you know why torture is an ineffective means of interrogation?

Yes, and it's the same reason we do not rely on confession to make legal cases against criminal or civil offenders.

In most cases, we must determine guilt (and intent) beyond a reasonable doubt through other means.

More to the point, we rely on intent to determine severity of punishment.

Cheers, Terry

[RHooks]

Not even in the ball park. When you place a person under extreme duress or extreme pain for extended periods of time they lose the capacity for rational thought. They will say anything, do anything to cause that pain to end. A person that is in that situation depends on people that are capable of making rational decisions to take care of them.

That is why we have laws against suicide, assisted suicide, a whole range of situations where people don't have the capacity for rational decisions.

Add to that that no human alive has the wisdom to decide for another when they should die.

The group you illustrate are simply ghouls preying on the misfortune of others.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Not even in the ball park. When you place a person under extreme duress or extreme pain for extended periods of time they lose the capacity for rational thought. They will say anything, do anything to cause that pain to end. A person that is in that situation depends on people that are capable of making rational decisions to take care of them.

That is why we have laws against suicide, assisted suicide, a whole range of situations where people don't have the capacity for rational decisions.

Add to that that no human alive has the wisdom to decide for another when they should die.

The group you illustrate are simply ghouls preying on the misfortune of others.

I was referring to a criminal's tendency to lie for the sake of self-preservation, under duress or not.

Oherwise, you are dead wrong about a person's ability to think rationally when facing dire circumstances like fatal illness. Many patients overcome the initial shock and they fully understand the weight of their own decisions, including how those decisions will effect others.

I've known two terminally ill adults who came to terms with their fate, made a competely rational decision to end their own lives, very responsible put all affairs in order, and then committed suicide in the quickest, most painless way possible. This they did in the privacy of their own homes without involving let alone endangering anyone else.

In both cases, these were extremely sad but perfectly sane choices made by rational human beings who were totally aware of what they were doing.

More to the point, it is not uncommon for terminally ill people to make the same rational decision - whether you want to recognize that fact or not.

As for licensed doctors counseling patients like this (and their families) in private, it is an act of mercy by professionals who are MUCH more qualified than 99.99% of all other people - including most politicians and especially barely educated, busibody religious fundamentalists who want to force everyone else to conform to their brand of ignorant, self-righteous insanity.

Cheers, Terry

.

[cci]

I've forgotten about this topic.....

.



Inflexible, slippery-slope, one-moral-size-fits-all thinking at its best.

Cheers, Terry

In your opinion.

And yet, that said article has argued correctly because life, at all stages, is no longer held, deemed or seen as sacred. We live in a "culture of death".

We claim to live in a civilized world and are civilized people, but I argue that we do not and are not, if we allow such atrocious acts on oneself to occur.

[Rob]

I think Caroline made a great point earlier (before the thread was necroed). If someone willingly sacrifices their life to save the life of another, they committed suicide. Is this also a part of a culture of death?

I still fail to see the atrocious act in assisted suicide. No, I am in no way an advocate for, but what is the purpose of keeping someone alive if they want to die? Is the goal simply to keep the body going for as long as it can? If so, why?

[draco7891]

When you place a person under extreme duress or extreme pain for extended periods of time they lose the capacity for rational thought. They will say anything, do anything to cause that pain to end. A person that is in that situation depends on people that are capable of making rational decisions to take care of them.

Add to that that no human alive has the wisdom to decide for another when they should die.

Isn't that the veritable definition of a catch-22? You can decide, but not think rationally; others can think rationally, but can't make the decision. Therefore no one ever dies?

What about cases where the decision must be made to continue life support or not? That's a situation where someone makes the decision who lives and who dies; sometimes it's a doctor, sometimes it's a family member. Should society instead keep people on life support indefinitely?

What about cases where the supportee has a clause in their will guarding against life support in the case of a permanent vegetative state? That decision was made (most probably) long before the debilitating condition occured; does that make it rational? In that case, wouldn't you have to say that there are in fact cases where people possess sufficient wisdom to make that decision? That there are situations where people can make the choice to effectively kill themselves (at a later date, assuming certain conditions)?

Then, consider that such clauses rely on either a family member or a member of the medical establishment to produce their professional opinion on condition and prognosis of the supportee. Does this constitute a rational decision made in the best interest of the individual? Is not this person effectively making the rational choice, in full knowledge that if they do so, the supportee will be killed?

---

I submit that the Western mores about suicide arise not from a moral sense of inadequacy in capability to decide fate, but rather the (biblical) philosophy that society needs as many members as possible. Since labor is (or rather, was) divisible by the number of productive members of society, anything which diminished that quantity or hindered the growth thereof was deemed aberrant, outlawed and discouraged (including things like suicide and homosexuality). Modern society being what it is today, large portions of society are no longer invested in sustenance operations; work is done by a plethora of labor-saving methods, not a mass quantity of people. The ideas that once ensured the survival of a budding populace simply do not apply in modernity.

People break under the stress of torture because they are made to think that it will continue forever, and that making the choice to talk will absolve them from it. In that case, there is a beginning and a definite end. A terminal disease has no end; those so diagnosed understand that they will live the rest of their lives in the pain and suffering of their affliction. Suicide for them is not seen as their deliverance from their condition, it's their release from what can be seen as pointless and unnecessary suffering. There is nothing to be gained by persisting in a life beset on all sides by the drudgery of illness; it does not increase one's character, one does not escape death, the fondness of memory is not sweetened by it. I fully support people's ability to accelerate the process under the care and direction of a trained medical professional.

Draco

[cci]

Seriously, the notion that life is sacred and we have no right to alter its trajectory at all becomes confusing when I ask myself these simple questions. Perhaps cci has the answers.

Medical assistance in suicide is interfering – but is permitted when it preserves the living body? Who determines what level is permitted – medicines, surgery, transplants, artificial bits and pieces, genetic manipulation?

Is the life of a human being any more special than an animal? Is it okay to kill a chimpanzee or an elephant even though we know these animals have family relationships and experience emotions like us?

If all human life is sacred and a gift, then how do we explain all the millions of miscarriages in the world? I have been on the receiving of several of those shonky gifts myself.... :(:

As death is inevitable why is it so important to preserve our physical existence for as long as possible? What difference can it make to the universe if we live 20 or 200 years, in pain or good health, die in bed or are killed on the battlefield?

You are arguing away from the subject matter and not directly addressing the matter at hand. This move falls under the Logical Fallacy: False Analogy

Description: An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things or events on which a comparison can be made. A false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar. Note that the two things may be similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued.

As cci is so determined that suicide is wrong under any circumstances how would he judge a person who knowingly sacrifices his own life to save another or to further a cause? Some of these people we call terrorists and some we call war heroes. All are dead by their own choices.

Suicide is not a sacrifice.

Cci states that we don’t have the right… etc. If not from our own deliberations then where do our rights come from?

We do not have the right to take another's life much less our own as I had pointed out above:

Realistically speaking, our life is not our own, nor is that of our parents and so on. We were all given life and that life has been transmitted from one generation to the next. If we are not the author of our own life, and we are not, who are we and what right do we have to take it from our selves [or from others for that matter]?

[Mighty Pirate]

Where does this statement that we don’t own ourselves come from? Every one of us is held responsible for our actions before a court of law so if we don’t own ourselves then who does?

Just last month a crippled man in a Perth nursing home won his case in court to have his tube feeding stopped. He wanted to escape the intolerable existence of a healthy mind terminally trapped in a quadriplegic body. He died shortly afterwards.

My husband’s cousin’s husband has been on life support for 2 years owing to an inoperable brain tumour. His world came tumbling down overnight as he woke up paralysed. He’s in his late 50s. They had to sell their business and house etc and their whole lives have been modified around his total physical dependence on 24 hour care. It’s only a prolonging measure because such victims die of complications and infections as their body atrophies. What will happen if after say 5 years of this he decides he wants out? What would the most humane option be? Who owns him?

It seems to me that human beings are the ones passing all the laws around here and different groups have different laws reflecting different points of view. But surely, the only person who should have the right to determine if they can kill themself should be the person themself.

[Terry Penrod]

.

We don't have the "right" to kill ourselves???

What gross hypocrisy in a society that kills people LEGALLY AND ON PURPOSE ALL THE TIME.

This debate - as always - comes down to prying, nosey, self-righteous hypocrites (usually in the name of religion) trying to impose their beliefs on innocent people by force via the threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment or worse.

The only crime being committed here is moralizing morons pretending to know what's best for other mature, sane human beings who have to endure endless pain and suffering as a result.

Cheers, Terry

[juxtaposed]

it's kind of funny arguing that suicide can or cannot be a right. if it is indeed a crime it can't be prosecuted, though the assisting thereof IS a crime in most places in the u.s. if not all, can't remember if there are any states where it is ok. in any case, just a funny argument to me. i can't have a say as to whether or not someone should be allowed to kill themselves as much as i can have a say whether or not they should be able to do the hokey pokey at birthday parties. that said, i don't think helping with someone with a bag over their head is necessarily something i agree with. but that's just me.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Oh come on now. No doctors are out there putting bags over the heads of terminally ill patients.

They're using the most humane methods possible to grant the dying wishes of people by ending their suffering.

The real question in this debate is what gives a bunch of total strangers the right to force people to suffer on and on and on AGAINST THEIR WILL or be placed indefinitely on artificial life support specifically AGAINST THEIR STATED WISHES?

Cheers, Terry

[Joe Cool]

Well, I think most (all?) people would agree it is better to be alive then not alive.

However, it is not as simple as that. You have to look at the condition of life. This is the crux of the matter for me. We are all alone, in mind and body; if someone damages my body, then only I, out of 6 billion people, can feel the pain. It is my body. This is where it gets hard for me. Living is better then not, but only for me. We do not know how someone with terminal illness lives, we can't know. Then who are we to determine the "quailty" of life that person leads? No one.

Therefor we must be impartial. A person can decribe the pain they are in, but only they can know if they are in a postion where life in no longer desirable. Who are we to tell them otherwise? It is the most basic right of any human to live, yet that right is taken away from people on a daily bases all over the world. In a world where life is so often taken with out peoples consent surely it hypocrisy to deny those few tortured people who do consent?

Looking for guidance from false idols is not the way forward. We can not play God, because there is no God. We humans must set our own guidelins for questions such as these.

Make no mistake though; suicide, assisted or otherwise is a violent act. The right of life is being taken away. Can an act of violence be an act of compassion?

As I said it is better to be alive then not. Should that be held in it's rawest form? Is one spark of life, no matter what condition, not worth a thousand blissful deaths?

[juxtaposed]

.

Oh come on now. No doctors are out there putting bags over the heads of terminally ill patients.

They're using the most humane methods possible to grant the dying wishes of people by ending their suffering.

The real question in this debate is what gives a bunch of total strangers the right to force people to suffer on and on and on AGAINST THEIR WILL or be placed indefinitely on artificial life support specifically AGAINST THEIR STATED WISHES?

Cheers, Terry

i actually never said anything about doctors doing the bag thing, http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/02/27/holding-plastic-bags-over-the-heads-of-people-in-final-exit-network-assisted-suicides/

and as far as not allowing someone to die according to their wish in the case of a DNR when they wouldn't survive without the machines, sure why not follow their wishes.

[cci]

Where does this statement that we don’t own ourselves come from? Every one of us is held responsible for our actions before a court of law so if we don’t own ourselves then who does?

Let's be clear about this: the Life we have is not our own. Your statement "we don't own ourselves" is misleading which make your point above quite confusing.

Just last month a crippled man in a Perth nursing home won his case in court to have his tube feeding stopped. He wanted to escape the intolerable existence of a healthy mind terminally trapped in a quadriplegic body. He died shortly afterwards.

My husband’s cousin’s husband has been on life support for 2 years owing to an inoperable brain tumour. His world came tumbling down overnight as he woke up paralysed. He’s in his late 50s. They had to sell their business and house etc and their whole lives have been modified around his total physical dependence on 24 hour care. It’s only a prolonging measure because such victims die of complications and infections as their body atrophies. What will happen if after say 5 years of this he decides he wants out? What would the most humane option be? Who owns him?

It seems to me that human beings are the ones passing all the laws around here and different groups have different laws reflecting different points of view. But surely, the only person who should have the right to determine if they can kill themself should be the person themself.

Taking someone off life support is not suicide where the individual is involved. Life support is what it is: it artificially supports and/or prolongs life. Simply disengaging the life support system allows the individual to die naturally. This is not an act of suicide.

[cci]

.

We don't have the "right" to kill ourselves???

What gross hypocrisy in a society that kills people LEGALLY AND ON PURPOSE ALL THE TIME.

This debate - as always - comes down to prying, nosey, self-righteous hypocrites (usually in the name of religion) trying to impose their beliefs on innocent people by force via the threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment or worse.

The only crime being committed here is moralizing morons pretending to know what's best for other mature, sane human beings who have to endure endless pain and suffering as a result.

Cheers, Terry

NO. The only crime here is allowing individuals to kill themselves and the morons who support such a malicious act on oneself.

As I have pointed out above: suicide "is an intentional act of wilful malice against oneself. It is wilful malice against oneself [since] as you [Terry have] said [in your previous posting]: 'it is done with the full knowledge, agreement, blessing and (usually active) participation of the "victim". ' ".

[Joe Cool]

Let's be clear about this: the Life we have is not our own.


Could you explain your point to me in more detail. How is the life we have not our own?

[Mighty Pirate]

Yes. That's what confuses me too. If my life isn't mine - whose is it?

[Terry Penrod]

.

NO. The only crime here is allowing individuals to kill themselves and the morons who support such a malicious act on oneself.

As I have pointed out above: suicide "is an intentional act of wilful malice against oneself. It is wilful malice against oneself [since] as you [Terry have] said [in your previous posting]: 'it is done with the full knowledge, agreement, blessing and (usually active) participation of the "victim". ' ".

In a free society, it is a crime to take away - by force and against their will -the right of innocent people to determine what they do with their own lives. That includes choosing how to end their life when it becomes intolerable.

What you are talking about is NOT a free society. It is an oppressive moral dictatorship based on submission, not freedom.

Some of us here want to stamp out that insidious element from our society. We want religious beliefs to be truly separated from the legal system. We want genuine freedom to choose without the threat of government-imposed penalties.

Regarding ownership of life - I and NOBODY else owns my life. Not you, not the church, not the government, and most definitely NOT some make-believe cosmic overseer.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Joe Cool]

.
Regarding ownership of life - I and NOBODY else owns my life. Not you, not the church, not the government, and most definitely NOT some make-believe cosmic overseer.

Cheers, Terry

.

+1

[Mighty Pirate]

As we are all going to die anyway.... it does seem totally illogical to decide that self-murder is wrong.

Terry pointed out that we do have murder as a regular feature of our existence, both the illegal kind and the govt sanctioned war/execution type. We also have murder by compassion that happens every day as dying patients are relieved of their pain via morphine which eventually kills them.

[Terry Penrod]

.

As we are all going to die anyway.... it does seem totally illogical to decide that self-murder is wrong.

Not just totally illogical, but also totally hypocritical.

This is especially true of ultra right-wing, religious nutcases who applaud the bombing of abortion clinics, support the death penalty, rally like lemmings behind wars, and fight like hell for the right to own the DEADLIEST firearms possible.

But "God" help us if we so much as question their precious right to spout self-righteous religious garbage from the highest pulpit while trying to pawn off their ignorant fantasies as legitimate science.

The WORST offenders are those hyper-hypocritical, pompously pious old farts at the Vatican who "outlaw" birth control and abortions while bemoaning the spread of aids, poverty, prostitution, and crime that come from rampant over population and ignorance.

Perhaps the most sickening of all the Catholic Church's many, many ongoing moral hypocrisies is the long history of widespread homosexual pedophelia amongst their own clergy.

Also shocking beyond belief are all the "faithful followers" of that astonishingly corrupt church who excuse this kind of attrocious behavior while openly depicting homosexuality and gay marriage as unforgiveable evils.

And some here actually think that THOSE blithering idiots are more capable of deciding what I can and can not do with my own damned life than I.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

Leaving all religion out of my comment - I have to say that those folk who insist that assisted suicide is unnecessary and that palliative care is adequate obviously haven't had a friend or relative experience such a passing. It is not adequate. The pain from cancer becomes so intense that the only way to relieve it is to overdose the patient so they are comatose. That's not living. So they die on a Friday instead of a Monday - is God happy now? Would he really be cross if it happened the other way round? I really don't see what benefit the patient gets from suffering or what harm the Universe sustains when people take such matters into their own hands.

I honestly think a lot of sincere, well-meaning people, embrace these philosophies without thinking out the consequences for their fellow human beings or the undesirability of obeying such a cruel and uncaring creator.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Leaving all religion out of my comment - I have to say that those folk who insist that assisted suicide is unnecessary and that palliative care is adequate obviously haven't had a friend or relative experience such a passing. It is not adequate. The pain from cancer becomes so intense that the only way to relieve it is to overdose the patient so they are comatose. That's not living. So they die on a Friday instead of a Monday - is God happy now? Would he really be cross if it happened the other way round? I really don't see what benefit the patient gets from suffering or what harm the Universe sustains when people take such matters into their own hands.

I honestly think a lot of sincere, well-meaning people, embrace these philosophies without thinking out the consequences for their fellow human beings or the undesirability of obeying such a cruel and uncaring creator.

No doubt the majority are sincere, well-meaning people...

who have fallen for a pack of lies and when challenged, tend to become fiercely defensive.

I was however referring mostly to those in positions of authority within powerful religious organizations like the Catholic Church who instigate those lies and manipulate those well-meaning people by engaging in gross hypocrisy and corrupt practices on a regular basis.

As for the religious splinter groups that bomb abortion clinics and teach hatred at every turn, they belong in prison.

Cheers, Terry

[juxtaposed]

.


This is especially true of ultra right-wing, religious nutcases who applaud the bombing of abortion clinics, support the death penalty, rally like lemmings behind wars, and fight like hell for the right to own the DEADLIEST firearms possible.

Cheers, Terry

lol, too true on too many levels

[Mighty Pirate]

I wondered if anything recent had spurred Terry's comments and I just found this - from Peru. A nice reassuring comment from a (male) religious leader who says that the idea the mother's life is more important is false. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=875102) Thanks. Wonder how he'd feel if men faced the same life or death dilemmas.

I don't want to distract from the focus on suicide and self-ownership but this is just one example of when a woman isn't considered to own her own body and a clear case of religion interfering with the secular governance of a population who presumably vote for their politicians and not their priests to make the laws.

And pregnant rape victims who seek an abortion are definitely being told they have no ownership over themselves.

You know, people who feel deeply about this sort of thing are not obliged to take advantage of the laws permitting such practices.

I'm going to get off my soapbox now and eat some chocolate....

[Joe Cool]

I think it is nice that people can have faith in Gods. I say good for them, dont fully understand it myself, but hey whatever works for ya, right? I can even understand the draw of it; "everlasting peace," sounds mighty fine. I also belive that beliving in a higher power is a good thing, in general, for the human race.

However, I am always bemused when rational, clever people side-step important issues, like this one, by just saying "God does not want use to do this." Or, whatever. Like MP said does it matter to God if a person dies on a Monday or Friday? Does assisted suicide mean God casts you out, even if you have led a good and devoted life? For that one act of "weaknesss"? Surely an entity so omnipotent as a God would not be so petty in their malice.

As I said before we as humans need to set our own guidlines for issues such as these.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I think it is nice that people can have faith in Gods. I say good for them, dont fully understand it myself, but hey whatever works for ya, right? I can even understand the draw of it; "everlasting peace," sounds mighty fine. I also belive that beliving in a higher power is a good thing, in general, for the human race.

However, I am always bemused when rational, clever people side-step important issues, like this one, by just saying "God does not want use to do this." Or, whatever. Like MP said does it matter to God if a person dies on a Monday or Friday? Does assisted suicide mean God casts you out, even if you have led a good and devoted life? For that one act of "weaknesss"? Surely an entity so omnipotent as a God would not be so petty in their malice.

As I said before we as humans need to set our own guidlines for issues such as these.

That is the whole religious enchilada in a single sentence, Joe.

People projecting their own pettiness (along with fear, anger, jealousy, etc.) onto God.

And it really doesn't matter one bit if God actually exists or not because ALL of us have to live with the consequences of this amazingly stupid tendency to assign FLAWED human values to an all powerful, unseen being.

It direct impacts people's opinions, choices and behavior.

Secular government is the only way to assure some balance between conflicting religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, a total separation of church and state isn't really possible because government is run by people and ALL of us are flawed.

That is also why I am so strongly opposed to government intrusions on privacy and on an individual's right to choose.

When these intrusions are motivated by religious beliefs or paranoia and when they begin to invade the most private, intimate corners of our lives, we MUST fight back with every ounce of strength we have.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Terry Penrod]

.


I wondered if anything recent had spurred Terry's comments and I just found this - from Peru.

A nice reassuring comment from a (male) religious leader who says that the idea the mother's life is more important is false. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=875102) Thanks. Wonder how he'd feel if men faced the same life or death dilemmas.

I don't want to distract from the focus on suicide and self-ownership but this is just one example of when a woman isn't considered to own her own body and a clear case of religion interfering with the secular governance of a population who presumably vote for their politicians and not their priests to make the laws.

And pregnant rape victims who seek an abortion are definitely being told they have no ownership over themselves.

You know, people who feel deeply about this sort of thing are not obliged to take advantage of the laws permitting such practices.

I'm going to get off my soapbox now and eat some chocolate....

Nothing specific or recent. Caroline - just the aggregate effect of witnessing the same stupidity repeat over and over again during my lifetime and as recorded throughout history.

Cheers, Terry

[Impresario]

I see little common ground between catholic and natural rights positions on assisted suicide. They are both beliefs but since much of America's underlying philosophy derives from the enlightenment, we often recoil from notions that argue we do not have direct dominion over matters that concern our personal liberty. The implication after all, is that there cannot be any right more fundamental to personal liberty then decisions about one's own death. It is understandable that a strict catholic would disagree with that because he or she believes that god has a superior ownership claim over our bodies and it is a misuse of free will to destroy what we do not own.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I see little common ground between catholic and natural rights positions on assisted suicide. They are both beliefs but since much of America's underlying philosophy derives from the enlightenment, we often recoil from notions that argue we do not have direct dominion over matters that concern our personal liberty. The implication after all, is that there cannot be any right more fundamental to personal liberty then decisions about one's own death. It is understandable that a strict catholic would disagree with that because he or she believes that god has a superior ownership claim over our bodies and it is a misuse of free will to destroy what we do not own.

That's a very well balanced and diplomatic way of explaining the fundamental difference between religious and secular views on this issue, Impresario.

But I would really like to hear your opinion about it - particularly regarding the gross hypocrisy demonstrated by the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations that continually try to force their beliefs onto millions of people who live in supposedly free, secular societies.

It's no secret that I despise organized religions because they always degenerate into just one more closed system corrupted by the hypocrisy, greed, ignorance and egomaniacal oppression of human beings.

If I were ever to fully embrace a belief in God, it sure as hell wouldn't be based on the opinions of other mortal men and colored so heavily by their own conceited compulsion to invent a supreme creator that resembles we weak, feeble, earthbound, hairless apes.

Cheers, Terry

[Joe Cool]

.



It's no secret that I despise organized religions because they always degenerate into just one more closed system corrupted by the hypocrisy, greed, ignorance and egomaniacal oppression of human beings.

If I were ever to fully embrace a belief in God, it sure as hell wouldn't be based on the opinions of other mortal men and colored so heavily by their own conceited compulsion to invent a supreme creator that resembles we weak, feeble, earthbound, hairless apes.

Cheers, Terry

Same for me Terry. The organized religion concept of God, it is just too dam human for me to get on board with.

I remember when I was about 11, I was starting to think that maybe the Cathloic church was all bullcrap. I was in church and the preist told us to kneel to pray. I remember thinking why would God care if I was kneeling when I was praying? Did he even know what kneeling was? Did not have better things to be doing then watching me kneel?

It kinda came to me then that I was only Cathloic cause I was told to be. From then on I looked at things with a more critical eye. That was the last time I went to church.

[Mighty Pirate]

I used to be ultra religious. At age 14 I was 'born again' and became besotted with Jesus and the whole 'God is Love' ideology. I spent my pocket money on Jesus buttons, stickers and other marketing stuff. Saturday and Sunday evenings were spent in Bible Study groups with a bunch of like-minded teenagers. It was a lot of fun until some members demonstrated superior spirituality by 'speaking in tongues' thus making the monolinguists feel slighted.

By this time I was moonlighting as an evangelist addressing church gatherings... LOL ... and severely embarrassing my mother by singing in shopping centres and stopping strangers on street corners handing out leaflets.

So I can answer what some people get out of religion - love, security - and a sense that they belong to a greater community that accepts them and cares for them and the personal attention of a powerful father-figure god. A form of anethestic against pain and chaos - Don't Panic! whatever happens, it's in God's Plan and it'll be alright in Heaven.

But such group loyalties depend entirely upon continued participation and compliance. I also watched how the leaders became conceited and assumed greater spiritual authority as the group grew in size. I belonged to several different groups so observed the differences that can develop and the pain that can be inflicted by people determined to interpret the Bible severely upon others.

In short, I peeped behind the curtains and saw what went on back stage and I was disillusioned. Then I grew up. It took about a decade before I was able to say that I no longer believed but in that time I had read a lot and tried sincerely to prove christianity by examining history closely. I have an abiding interest in all religions - from a curiosity viewpoint - not from one seeking 'the truth'. It's a pity though that every philosophical discussion needs to identify and negate the thought pollution of religious dogma before truly humanist values can be reached.

I think religion should be like salt - sprinkled lightly according to taste but with the full knowledge that too much is dangerous.

[Terry Penrod]

.

In the past, we have spoken in some depth about your early religious experiences and the changes you underwent as a young adult, Caroline.

We have also participated in many long, often heated debates on the subject - usually agreeing on the basics of why so many otherwise intelligent people turn into religious fanatics.

My greater concern as always are the millions of believers who hover somewhere between casual church goers and true fanaticism that collectively form a massively powerful majority.

Together as huge, influential organizations, they can and do determine so many of our laws and our prevailing attitudes.

So when they begin to lean too far left or right, the net effect can do untold harm to the human race - MUCH moreso than a handful of suicide bombers. They can literally change the rules of civilization, intrude on even the most private affairs, and become a source of intolerable oppression.

They may do this in the name of God, but that is an insidious lie. In reality, it is just an excuse to pass harsh judgement on others, to dominate, to control, to in some way profit.

Drenched in a sea of hypocrisy, it is predictable and all too common.

Cheers, Terry

Editied to correct a typo

.

[Mighty Pirate]

They may do this in the name of God, but that is an insidious lie. In reality, it is just an excuse to pass harsh judgement on others, to dominate, to control, to in some way profit.


Which raises an interesting question. If religions are simply a form of political power then isn't that legitimately a human activity, a defining trait of humanity?

If religious rules are a true reflections of what the majority believes, then don't they have credibility - at least in the community that creates them?

The issue that immediately arises is one of coercion. I was raised non-religious and chose religion (for intellectual/emotional reasons). I abandoned it for the same. I outgrew the emotional and couldn't find the intellectual substance. But I had no family culture enforcing it. A lot of people do not have the luxury of dissent or debate and grow up without it. For them, the religious precepts are ingrained, hard-wired into their personal DOS and they have no options but to remain within the paremeters of their existence.

Do those groups with different ideas have the right to impose their will upon a group they see as deluded? It's a two way street, naturally. But that's what we have right now - a clash of ideologies.

[Impresario]

That's a very well balanced and diplomatic way of explaining the fundamental difference between religious and secular views on this issue, Impresario.

But I would really like to hear your opinion about it - particularly regarding the gross hypocrisy demonstrated by the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations that continually try to force their beliefs onto millions of people who live in supposedly free, secular societies.

My views are that I feel fortunate to live in a country where Jefferson's letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association became the law of the land:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

As to hypocrisy Terry, I think that religious organizations do not hold a monopoly on that vice but it is an affliction that affects both institutions and individuals. It is the peculiar characteristic of personal beliefs that tolerance and respect for another’s point-of-view often becomes carrion to be picked over by bombastic vultures. Still, I believe that faith and reason can co-exist as long as the majority does not tyrannize the minority.

[juxtaposed]

are we able to rename the thread?

[Terry Penrod]

.

Which raises an interesting question. If religions are simply a form of political power then isn't that legitimately a human activity, a defining trait of humanity?

If religious rules are a true reflections of what the majority believes, then don't they have credibility - at least in the community that creates them?

The issue that immediately arises is one of coercion. I was raised non-religious and chose religion (for intellectual/emotional reasons). I abandoned it for the same. I outgrew the emotional and couldn't find the intellectual substance. But I had no family culture enforcing it. A lot of people do not have the luxury of dissent or debate and grow up without it. For them, the religious precepts are ingrained, hard-wired into their personal DOS and they have no options but to remain within the paremeters of their existence.

Do those groups with different ideas have the right to impose their will upon a group they see as deluded? It's a two way street, naturally. But that's what we have right now - a clash of ideologies.

Yes of course the beliefs of the majority should be respected, Caroline. But that does not excuse blatant abuses of power - no matter where they occur or who instigates them.

I make NO distinction between gross hypocrisies and attempts to oppress individual rights whether they are commited by elected governments, totalitarian governments / military regimes, private corporations, or religious organizations like the Catholic Church.

NONE of them should get a free ride period.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Mighty Pirate]

Ah but Terry..... the basic notion of human rights that you and I almost share will be a very different concept to people raised in different cultures. That's where the clash is inevitable.

For a nation that starts with the premise that men and women are equal will always have difficulty respecting the viewpoint and laws of a nation that says otherwise.

This is why Britain now has Sharia courts that operate clandestinely among the immigrant populations and some people are calling for them to be legally recognised. Concepts of authority and respect and what these two ideas really mean still have to be agreed upon.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Despite a brilliant Constitution and an extensive Bill of Rights, we have deep cultural, religious and political divides right here in the USA, Caroline.

The problem does not stem from our founding principles. It begins and ends with all the hypocrites who twist simple ideas like "all men are created equal..." and "equal justice for all" to suit their selfish purposes.

To them, the real meaning of those phrases is "all men are created equal... as long as they look and act like me" and "equal rights for all... unless they refuse to obediently adopt all of my beliefs".

Cheers, Terry

[D.evina]

oh God... Kark... this is a horrible situation... i dont even know where to start...
Ok, first of all... it is not your fault that your friend commited suicide, he had made up his mind no matter what u would of done. I have a friend, my best male friend... he is a very depresive person, and some years ago he tryed to kill himself too... he was feeling lonely and had issues going on in his life, i was the last one to talk to him, but no matter what i or anybody else would say to him every day, he did it anyways and took some pills. Luckyly his mother found him on time and call for help. When somebody is decided to do such thing, they dont think twice.

About this other friend who is thinking about doing the same, i´d say..talk to her parents if u see something strange, like her unusual happiness... so they are aware of what´s going on, this way maybe they can have a closer eye on her.... depression is a very hard nightmare to get out of... but it is not imposible... time is a healer .... it will not make u forget, but it will make u accept things and life, better... if only she could see that... the only thing she needs is a little hope, something that makes her come back to her old self again.... cuz now she is lost, blind by her sadness....

I seriously wish i could help u better, im sorry if i cant do more..... hope everything goes ok with u and your friends....

hugs

[Rob]

Spambot

[Mighty Pirate]

Really? You obviously attract a different class of spambot than the other forum I hang out at. :): Ours usually start threads and then come back and tell us we've made 'some good point's. :lol: We've had some fun with these things in the past.

[Rob]

This one couldn't even bother to do that, doing a copy and paste of their original post. Interesting there wasn't even a link or something though, so what is the point?