> >On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:59:53 -0800 (PST), tirebiter > >> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in > >> private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy. > >> Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for > >> "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill > >> a very sick and weak person.
> >If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled > >by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and > >dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is > >voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
> You're completely nuts. Apparently you think that letting > people treat their pain is killing them. You would rather > that they be in agony without any medical care at all.
> You are a prime example of what happens when cult ideology > trumps common sense.
The USA has government healthcare (by means of Medicare) for those most likely to be subjected to euthanasia, ie, the elderly. Is there evidence of widespread euthanasia taking place among the elderly in America today? Is there any evidence for increases in the rate of euthanasia among the elderly since Medicare was started more than 40 years ago? It seems that if this were truly a problem, the opponents of government healthcare would have revealed the evidence by now.
> On 7 Nov 2009 04:16:03 -0800, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> > wrote: >> Euthanasia is a very difficult and emotive area and >> has nothing to do with the different types of health >> systems. It happens everywhere.
> It happens everywhere - but who gets to decide?. Who > gets to decide *does* depend on the health system.
No, it depends on the laws, which, regardless of the health system, can allow, restrict or forbid euthanasia.
> Further, though it happens everywhere, it is apt to > happen a lot more in a health system where bureaucrats > decide, and a lot less in a health system where patients > decide.
What is there in a public health system that absolutely requires that euthanasia not be voluntary?
> On Nov 7, 7:20 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > James A. Donald wrote: > > > "James A. Donald" > > >>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > > >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > > >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the > > >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> > > "thomas p." > > >> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have > > >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
> > > I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is > > > furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to agree > > > with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, and that > > > this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a slippery slope to > > > euthanasia.
> > Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are receiving > > excellent medical care. They have the same health insurance that everybody > > has, and both hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in exactly > > the same way as for the care of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this > > country, abortion is not and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark > > is doing quite well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope > > to euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number of > > people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting that > > people should have control over their own lives is, in my opinion, > > sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that and compassion. > > There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid of people gaining such > > autonomy.
> Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
Then why is it not only *legal*, but even considered *moral* when we euthanize our older pets? They are also in pain. Why does our society allow a more dignified death for the "lesser" animals than it does for ourselves?
> In > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
So every "traditional law" is worthy of our continued allegiance to it?
I guess that means I can go buy m'self a couple of slaves to clean the house now. Except for the fact that I'm a "blasphemer", and have a date with the stone-throwing folks tomorrow morning.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta. aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
> On Nov 7, 11:20 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 7:20 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > James A. Donald wrote: > > > > "James A. Donald" > > > >>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > > > >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > > > >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the > > > >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> > > > "thomas p." > > > >> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have > > > >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
> > > > I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is > > > > furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to agree > > > > with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, and that > > > > this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a slippery slope to > > > > euthanasia.
> > > Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are receiving > > > excellent medical care. They have the same health insurance that everybody > > > has, and both hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in exactly > > > the same way as for the care of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this > > > country, abortion is not and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark > > > is doing quite well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope > > > to euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number of > > > people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting that > > > people should have control over their own lives is, in my opinion, > > > sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that and compassion. > > > There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid of people gaining such > > > autonomy.
> > Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
> Then why is it not only *legal*, but even considered *moral* when we > euthanize our older pets?
Not everyone considers it moral. If you think i is moral, I am no the best one to explain the source of your ideas. Logic is not your first language, is it.
Killing a pet is not criminal, except in the "cruelty to animals" family of laws that was promulgated by the same political pressure group that advocates euthanasia for animals.
> They are also in pain.
You said they were "older."
> Why does our society > allow a more dignified death for the "lesser" animals than it does for > ourselves?
Because euthanasia for pets does not open the same highway to abuse as human euthanasia. Even "consenting" euthanasia leaves open the possibility for abuse.
> > In > > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
> So every "traditional law" is worthy of our continued allegiance to > it?
Your problem is that you do not understand the operation of law in society well enough. Since the penalty of murder is so high, you cannot design the law in such fashion that murder is excused when evidence is shown of consent of the victim. If you don't understand that, you need to consider why prosecution for domestic abuse is removed from the participation of the victim.
Think hard now. Real hard.
> I guess that means I can go buy m'self a couple of slaves to clean the > house now. Except for the fact that I'm a "blasphemer", and have a > date with the stone-throwing folks tomorrow morning.
Franco <ffra...@mailandnews.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 9:51 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:59:53 -0800 (PST), tirebiter >> >> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in >> >> private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy. >> >> Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for >> >> "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill >> >> a very sick and weak person.
>> >If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled >> >by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and >> >dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is >> >voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
>> You're completely nuts. Apparently you think that letting >> people treat their pain is killing them. You would rather >> that they be in agony without any medical care at all.
>> You are a prime example of what happens when cult ideology >> trumps common sense.
>The USA has government healthcare (by means of Medicare) for those >most likely to be subjected to euthanasia, ie, the elderly. Is there >evidence of widespread euthanasia taking place among the elderly in >America today?
No.
> Is there any evidence for increases in the rate of >euthanasia among the elderly since Medicare was started more than 40 >years ago? It seems that if this were truly a problem, the opponents >of government healthcare would have revealed the evidence by now.
But they're crazy. They don't deal with the facts.
> One of the really odd things I have read, and admired, about the > Netherlands is how many voters are fairly traditional and religious in > their personal views on many issues but manage to vote to _mind their > own business_
Yes, well, that's kinda true, but let no one tell you that the Netherlands are anywhere close to tolerance these days... that's a thing of the past. Although I still think it'll return after a few more government changes. It has to get worse before it can get better, I fear. But we don't let dying people suffer horribly and I don't think we'll lose THAT.
James A. Donald wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild > <j...@xmission.com> wrote: >> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten >> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing >> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other >> possible ideas. > Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep) > ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each > year.
Are you referring to death penalty? Because we don't have that in the Netherlands. Neither do they in Denmark.
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote: >> The Netherlands is doing just FINE -- and there just may >> not be a BETTER place on the entire planet to live than in >> Amsterdam!
>> They'll CONTINUE to do fine as long as they continue to >> REJECT the RRR Cult and its hateful, sociopathic, repressive, >> and unconscionably-absurd and irrational agendas.
>> And I extend that same advice to ALL of the OTHER nations >> of the world. This is a uniquely-AMERICAN infestation. ... > I think it's a pretty big problem in Italy, too.
In Italy, I think the biggest problem is with the RCC Cult and Pope Benedict Arnold's disdain for personal liberties. The hatefulness and stupidity of the RRR and RCC Cults overlap quite a bit. Particularly when it comes to reproductive rights/ abortion, death-with-dignity, and equal rights for gays.
The good news is that most Italians have proven themselves surprisingly resistant to such hateful ignorance, despite the HQ of the RCC Cult's being within it.
>> ... Everyone should ensure that it REMAINS such, until we in >> America DISPOSE of all of those hate-agendas and render them >> EXTINCT, forevermore, never to be heard from again.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace ••• ••• George Richard Tiller, MD ••• ••• A True American HERO! ••• ••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 ••• ••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.messianic.] On 2009-11-06, Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is >> rotting from the inside out)
> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten because it doesn't > cater to the extreme right-wing variety of "christians" to the exclusion > of all other possible ideas.
Right. I'm Dutch and I don't recognize the content of that vicious virtually fascist attitude in that article. What a disgusting piece of hatred. When I read that some morons had painted those slogans I was disappointed at my fellow Dutch, but after reading the kind of rants that are produced by ppl sympathetic to that organization ...
By the way, i don't agree at all with the now indeed common practice in Holland that ppl behave casually toward marrying and even some pretend that divorse is casual. This has changed from the past and is possibly a backlash result of the too agressive & violently prosecuted ideas where parents meddle in the afairs of their children in deciding who they marry and not, and also in allowing abuse of the women in a marriage to go on for the sake of maintaining a pretty facade of normalcy, also extended to child abuse. The whole community would then look the other way while the man of the household abused his family, leaving things to happen 'because marriage was sacret.' I can imagine such attitudes have caused hatred against marriage itself, quite understandably. I'm not saying most ppl in Holland behave so violent in marriage, but some of course do and did, as in all nations.
I'd also agree that this has now produced a cavelier attitude to getting children and abortions basically, which is generally not a good thing. Children need steady and save homes to live, and parents that behave as adults (note how that goal is the same as a possible (speculative!!) cause of the breakdown of an excessively brutal form of marriage.)
The idea that euthenasia might wipe out the Dutch is absurd.
While the dark Empire (America) collapses, they lash out viciously at others in an effort to try to make themselves believe they are no more evil or wrong headed then the next nation. Unfortunately in doing so they also close their eyes from learning something useful from another nation; for sure there are things that we do better then the USA while there may also be things the USA does better then us. It would be nice if we could attempt to learn from each other.
By the way: when you are in A'dam, you are in "the Randstad," which is all those west/central cities like The Hague, A'dam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, etc. Those are the cities most of the immigrants travel to, because if you are an immigrant you obviously want to live with other immigrants. Many Dutch ppl are also moving out of these cities, I have read. Hence, if you are looking around in A'dam or those cities, you are probably not confronted with what is the regular Dutch culture at the moment. Perhaps particularly A'dam has its own provincial culture, every province obviously has its own type of culture. A'dam seems to be particularly proud of itself. Hence you might not have gone to the most Dutch part of Holland by going to A'dam. But in any case regional differences seem to be quite large I guess (but this may be an internal view.)
Germany is a very nice nation as well, very well ordered and its public transportation works well. Go to Hamburg next time, for example.
Maybe one day we should throw the Randstad out of Holland, or break away with the North. Maybe we should join Finland or something here in the North, why not, at least they pay cleaners a fair wage. --
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.messianic.] On 2009-11-07, Edward A. Falk <f...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
> The thing I remember about my visits to the Netherlands is that public > policy is not based on religion or emotion. If they have a problem, > they study it, figure out what works and what doesn't, and then do the > right thing.
Lol, i wish that where true, but it isn't. The same idiotic capitalists rule Holland as the rest of all nations.
But what is true is that we do manage somewhat of a multi-party system here, which does seem to be more about content *compared* to some other nations where it is all about the personality of the next puppet to front for capitalist looting.
> Terry Cross wrote: > > On Nov 7, 7:20 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> James A. Donald wrote: > >>> "James A. Donald" > >>>>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > >>>>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > >>>>> you have to agree with the original poster that the > >>>>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> >>> "thomas p." > >>>> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not > >>>> have euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
> >>> I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is > >>> furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to > >>> agree with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, > >>> and that this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a > >>> slippery slope to euthanasia.
> >> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are > >> receiving excellent medical care. They have the same health > >> insurance that everybody has, and both hospitals and doctors are > >> reimbursed for their care in exactly the same way as for the care of > >> others. Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not and > >> it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is doing quite well > >> thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope to > >> euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number > >> of people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting > >> that people should have control over their own lives is, in my > >> opinion, sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that > >> and compassion. There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid > >> of people gaining such autonomy.
> > Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse. In > > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a murder > > trial, consent is not a defense.
> On the other hand a legal act, such as euthanasia within the legal limits > set is not murder.
So you mean to say as long as Dr. President says it's OK to murder, it's not murder?
You prove it without being asked: too many Atheists have no moral compass. Whatever their masters tell them, there they will happily march, kill, and die as so ordered.
An "authority" cannot make OK what is not OK. And here is the irony: the one thing Nuremberg had to teach was no lesson at all to those who worship at its altars.
Franco <ffra...@mailandnews.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 11:54 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 11:07 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> > In article <4f315278-72ff-46d4-82d6-4e199c067...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, >> > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> said:
>> > > Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
>> > Or not, depending whether or not you, Terry Cross, get to make up >> > your own facts.
>> > > In traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a >> > > murder trial, consent is not a defense.
>> > > Euthanisia is a threat to that principle.
>> > And that's a good thing, since the principle is wrong.
>> It is the same principle that is carried into the laws on domestic >> abuse. Is that wrong, too?
>PROOF:
>Palin: Dems will apply abortion mind-set to elderly.
Terry Cross wrote: > On Nov 7, 12:46 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Terry Cross wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 7:20 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> James A. Donald wrote: >>>>> "James A. Donald" >>>>>>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have >>>>>>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then >>>>>>> you have to agree with the original poster that the >>>>>>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
>>>>> "thomas p." >>>>>> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not >>>>>> have euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
>>>>> I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor >>>>> is furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to >>>>> agree with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from >>>>> within, and that this is evidence suggesting that abortion >>>>> creates a slippery slope to euthanasia.
>>>> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are >>>> receiving excellent medical care. They have the same health >>>> insurance that everybody has, and both hospitals and doctors are >>>> reimbursed for their care in exactly the same way as for the care >>>> of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not >>>> and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is doing quite >>>> well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope to >>>> euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number >>>> of people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting >>>> that people should have control over their own lives is, in my >>>> opinion, sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that >>>> and compassion. There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid >>>> of people gaining such autonomy.
>>> Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse. In >>> traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a murder >>> trial, consent is not a defense.
>> On the other hand a legal act, such as euthanasia within the legal >> limits set is not murder.
> So you mean to say as long as Dr. President says it's OK to murder, > it's not murder?
> You prove it without being asked: too many Atheists have no moral > compass. Whatever their masters tell them, there they will happily > march, kill, and die as so ordered.
Why do you have to post such nonsense? The above is absurd and a vicious lie. It also makes reasonable discussion nearly impossible; could that possibly be the motivation?
> An "authority" cannot make OK what is not OK. And here is the irony: > the one thing Nuremberg had to teach was no lesson at all to those who > worship at its altars.
When I went to Catholic school I was taught that bearing false witness is a sin. I do not believe in sin, but I certainly believe that bearing false witness is wrong; how do you excuse it? It is more than a little ironic that you have the nerve to accuse others of being immoral.
> On Nov 7, 11:37 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:20 am,TerryCross<tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 7:20 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > James A. Donald wrote: > > > > > "James A. Donald" > > > > >>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > > > > >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > > > > >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the > > > > >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> > > > > "thomas p." > > > > >> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have > > > > >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
> > > > > I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is > > > > > furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to agree > > > > > with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, and that > > > > > this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a slippery slope to > > > > > euthanasia.
> > > > Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are receiving > > > > excellent medical care. They have the same health insurance that everybody > > > > has, and both hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in exactly > > > > the same way as for the care of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this > > > > country, abortion is not and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark > > > > is doing quite well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope > > > > to euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number of > > > > people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting that > > > > people should have control over their own lives is, in my opinion, > > > > sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that and compassion. > > > > There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid of people gaining such > > > > autonomy.
> > > Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
> > Then why is it not only *legal*, but even considered *moral* when we > > euthanize our older pets?
> Not everyone considers it moral.
Hmm...I've not seen much evidence of that. Where are the vetenary hospitals full of elderly dogs & cats connected to respirators?
> If you think i is moral, I am no the > best one to explain the source of your ideas. Logic is not your first > language, is it.
Oh, it serves me well enough to see when someone is attacking my simple rhetoric in an attempt to derail the conversation...
> Killing a pet is not criminal, except in the "cruelty to animals" > family of laws that was promulgated by the same political pressure > group that advocates euthanasia for animals.
Are you attempting to claim that euthanasia for elderly animals is "immoral"?
Oh, of course not. you're just attempting to "imply" it, so that when I say you claimed such a thing, you can back out by stating, "...I never *said* that!..."
> > They are also in pain.
> You said they were "older."
Do you deny that as an animal ages, it suffers from pain? Hell, I'm only 47, and I already have problems with my joints.
> > Why does our society > > allow a more dignified death for the "lesser" animals than it does for > > ourselves?
> Because euthanasia for pets does not open the same highway to abuse as > human euthanasia. Even "consenting" euthanasia leaves open the > possibility for abuse.
Please expand upon this point. Your previous insult to me wasn't strong enough to discourage my curiosity about why you'd think such a thing.
> > > In > > > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
> > So every "traditional law" is worthy of our continued allegiance to > > it?
> Your problem is that you do not understand the operation of law in > society well enough.
And yours is that *you* do not understand how often "law" fails society. Which was the point I was making in my rhetoric later in my post.
> Since the penalty of murder is so high, you > cannot design the law in such fashion that murder is excused when > evidence is shown of consent of the victim. If you don't understand > that, you need to consider why prosecution for domestic abuse is > removed from the participation of the victim.
Bad example. Domestic abuse is most often between two people who are young and healthy.
> Think hard now. Real hard.
No reason to, when your nonsense doesn't require it.
> > I guess that means I can go buy m'self a couple of slaves to clean the > > house now. Except for the fact that I'm a "blasphemer", and have a > > date with the stone-throwing folks tomorrow morning.
> Whatever are you babbling about?
Your original implication that current law actually adresses modern concerns. It was intended as an experiment in thought to your comment about "traditional" law. Buying slaves and being killed for being a "blasphemer" were once legal. The statement was supposed to remind you that law often does not progress as quickly as society does.
Since you failed that experiment, allow me to suggest something that might help you comprehend such a comment in the future:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:37:09 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
<tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: >So you mean to say as long as Dr. President says it's OK to murder, >it's not murder?
>You prove it without being asked: too many Atheists have no moral >compass. Whatever their masters tell them, there they will happily >march, kill, and die as so ordered.
You say that as though atheists are more likely to go to war than theists. Have you looked at the world?
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Do you really think that words coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth constitute proof? Do you really think that anybody else (outside of Teabagerry, Inc.) believes it?
>Do you really think that words coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth >constitute proof? Do you really think that anybody else (outside >of Teabagerry, Inc.) believes it?
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
