I thought we were supposed to aske questions and not assmegg with our assumptions? That is what I heard from my high horse anyways.
Belgium bill to legally kill children & demented adults
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
I thought we were supposed to aske questions and not assmegg with our assumptions? That is what I heard from my high horse anyways.
HipHopAnonymous
Active Member
*googles assmegging*
I had a nice reply to this but it was wayyyyy to easy. : )
I'm way cool with this, but I am pretty Kevorkian at times. There's a two part process that has to pass before they can have approval to pull the plug:
1. They have to be deemed mature enough to make the decision
2. Health has to be grave and hopeless enough to warrant youth in Asia
A child looses the hand on one arm and says "I wanna kill myself!". Big whoop-d-doo. No one gives a crap; It'll never happen; quit being an angsty teen. You can still live a happy life, my BFF is living proof.
But lets say a child diagnosed with inoperable cancer. Cancer that's spread to multiple areas of the body, most days s/he doesn't have enough energy to leave the house... some days not even enough energy to get out of bed. Doctors have been able to slow growth, but not stop it, and again it's inoperable. This person knows s/he's going to die... doctors originally said a year at most, but that's been 18 months ago. This person is 15, and has accepted that it'll be a miracle to make it to 18, but a hellish one filled with pain, nausea, incontinence, hair loss, calcium deficiency, all number of digestive disorders, and knowing that s/he's bankrupted his family twice already. Knowing this, they've asked to end it. How can you say "No, I'm sorry but that's not going to happen"? Sure, I'm saying all this without having an emotional attachment to a child. Cold might be a good term. But really put yourself in that kids shoes... Someone that knows they're going to die. Knows the pain they're in for. Knows the anguish they're causing the family just being unable to enjoy life like others, let alone the family needing to take care of them. If a panel of experts takes all of this into consideration, and evaluates that the patient has made a mature, rational decision.. and a second panel has decided that there is no light at the end of the tunnel, what then?
Now the part of the bill I don't care for much is this:
They don't talk about what the measures are in the article, but I'd hope they're a little more strict about this. It feels like there needs to be a different panel that looks at these cases; a little more strict. They need to finalize a some form of scale to use for the diseases. The result of that scale must be the BEGINNING point, not the end. From there, only patients scoring higher than, say, 7/10 can have their situation evaluated by the specialists.
To add another level of "OMG NO" for some of us; these specialists are the ever hated "death panels", just in a far different fashion than we in the states have ever fathomed. You can see them as people sentencing people to death, or you can see them as helping people to not live in pain and indignity. I lean to the latter.
1. They have to be deemed mature enough to make the decision
2. Health has to be grave and hopeless enough to warrant youth in Asia
A child looses the hand on one arm and says "I wanna kill myself!". Big whoop-d-doo. No one gives a crap; It'll never happen; quit being an angsty teen. You can still live a happy life, my BFF is living proof.
But lets say a child diagnosed with inoperable cancer. Cancer that's spread to multiple areas of the body, most days s/he doesn't have enough energy to leave the house... some days not even enough energy to get out of bed. Doctors have been able to slow growth, but not stop it, and again it's inoperable. This person knows s/he's going to die... doctors originally said a year at most, but that's been 18 months ago. This person is 15, and has accepted that it'll be a miracle to make it to 18, but a hellish one filled with pain, nausea, incontinence, hair loss, calcium deficiency, all number of digestive disorders, and knowing that s/he's bankrupted his family twice already. Knowing this, they've asked to end it. How can you say "No, I'm sorry but that's not going to happen"? Sure, I'm saying all this without having an emotional attachment to a child. Cold might be a good term. But really put yourself in that kids shoes... Someone that knows they're going to die. Knows the pain they're in for. Knows the anguish they're causing the family just being unable to enjoy life like others, let alone the family needing to take care of them. If a panel of experts takes all of this into consideration, and evaluates that the patient has made a mature, rational decision.. and a second panel has decided that there is no light at the end of the tunnel, what then?
Now the part of the bill I don't care for much is this:
They don't talk about what the measures are in the article, but I'd hope they're a little more strict about this. It feels like there needs to be a different panel that looks at these cases; a little more strict. They need to finalize a some form of scale to use for the diseases. The result of that scale must be the BEGINNING point, not the end. From there, only patients scoring higher than, say, 7/10 can have their situation evaluated by the specialists.
To add another level of "OMG NO" for some of us; these specialists are the ever hated "death panels", just in a far different fashion than we in the states have ever fathomed. You can see them as people sentencing people to death, or you can see them as helping people to not live in pain and indignity. I lean to the latter.
I know a nice cliff where nobody'd ever find my bones. . . . . actually, several. . . . .
I hate the whole idea of being posthumously filled with radiator fluid or any toxic fluid and stuffed in a box, possibly bankrupting my kids with funeral bills/cemetery plot.
There are several piles of bones in the desert where some old cows have died. I gather up the bones and feed them to my dogs.
what right do I have to deny the buzzards their eyejuice, the maggots/flies their feast in due season, the rats and mice some high protein nibbling in the night, and rattlesnakes a nice spot to catch pick a fresh lunch, and the coyotes somethings to knaw on in a winter snowdrift?
Sometimes I say that if it weren't for women there'd be no such thing as civilization. . . . and sometimes when I look at our political world I argue with that, saying that maybe civilization is worse than nature. No sense blaming women for who they elect as 'public servants', but show me one politician who isn't a buzzard circling the public corpse today.
I hate the whole idea of being posthumously filled with radiator fluid or any toxic fluid and stuffed in a box, possibly bankrupting my kids with funeral bills/cemetery plot.
There are several piles of bones in the desert where some old cows have died. I gather up the bones and feed them to my dogs.
what right do I have to deny the buzzards their eyejuice, the maggots/flies their feast in due season, the rats and mice some high protein nibbling in the night, and rattlesnakes a nice spot to catch pick a fresh lunch, and the coyotes somethings to knaw on in a winter snowdrift?
Sometimes I say that if it weren't for women there'd be no such thing as civilization. . . . and sometimes when I look at our political world I argue with that, saying that maybe civilization is worse than nature. No sense blaming women for who they elect as 'public servants', but show me one politician who isn't a buzzard circling the public corpse today.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Euthanasia is for me a difficult topic. I do believe that 'assisted-suicide,' or whatever we choose to call it, in some cases is appropriate, but the rules governing it need to be very carefully delineated as it is a potential slippery slope.