What's the thinking on Voluntary Euthanasia?

I don't really know Bee, but having seen the photo I think he made a very poor choice to terminate his life.
After having seen other people who had the strength to face life after losing three of their four limbs I feel he still had a lot to live for.
It might not have been easy but few worthwhile things ever are. For the majority life is a struggle at some stage but with the passage of time things may get better. That's the definition of hope, I suppose.

One of the things that is not often discussed is the effect suicide has on other family members. Children with parents who kill themselves are more likely to be attempt and succeed in taking their own lives later on. I remember a family where the mother shot herself under the house (she was mentally unwell) and next year on her anniversary one of her sons walked in front of a train. He was not mentally unwell but was undoubtedly still grieving. He was studying medicine at university. What a waste !
 

But we don't know what his real mental state was at the time especially what he may have gone through before he had a sex change and then to think he looked like a monster afterwards, obviously pushed him over the edge.

We have to remember that some people are much stronger than others to deal with whatever life throws at them.

Many years ago I had an aunt that committed suicide for reasons best known to herself, her family grieved the same as any other death, it didn't make them want to follow the same way.
 
Once again, in all seriousness I don't see the problem.

WHY are we fighting against people taking their own lives when this planet is already stretched beyond its ability to support the 7 billion souls wandering around. Isn't 7 billion enough? Why not make room for the survivors, the strong, by allowing the weak to self-terminate?

Are we trying to break some kind of intergalactic record for phone-booth jamming?

Religious convictions aside (because I'm not gonna' get into that), Nature has plainly shown that the Way to be emulated is Survival of the Fittest. Sure, we humans are so clever - we've leveled the playing field with our brains. But brains alone don't cut it, as can be seen with just a brief glimpse of the daily news headlines.

It's the 80/20 Rule, but implemented in an inefficient way - we're wasting 80% of our time, money and effort for the weakest 20%. Try finding a similar example in Nature.

It's like with this government shut-down - I was looking at a list of "furloughed" employees last night and noted that the WIC program that provides low-income women, infants and children with food and formula has been shut down. My thought was, what are those women going to do NOW? They had kids when they knew they couldn't support them, I'm pretty sure they had access to birth-control, but now that the hand-outs have dried up they're up the creek. So who's to blame?

Weakness.
 
How easy is it for low income women to get access to effective birth control and/or safe terminations?

What should they do, if after they have their children, their income takes a dive through misadventure, death of a partner or desertion ?
Dump the kids at the nearest orphanage?

That's what used to happen.
Or they went on the game.
 
I feel if you wish to end your life you should be able to, no-one should be able to dictate to you how you live or die.It was his choice to die why should we question and try to analyse his mental state, we didn't know him and obviously the Doctor if he thought there was a problem would have stopped it.
My uncle comitted suicide years ago and the rest of the family have been fine, they didn't have suicidal thoughts themselves.
After my Husband died in an accident i lined up a few trees to run into with my car but i couldn't do that to my daughters, they were grieving enough.
Phil i agree with your last post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Concerning the Belgian man, I've found something else that sheds a new light.
I now think that it is very sad that he felt the way he did.
There's always more to a story than we read in the papers.

Explaining his decision hours before his death, Mr Verhelst said he was "the girl that nobody wanted".

He told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper: "While my brothers were celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. 'If only you had been a boy', my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/sex-change-man-chooses-euthanasia-20131002-2urik.html#ixzz2gYzhVbU5
Click to expand...

And then there is the mother

On Monday, Nathan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was killed by lethal injection after requesting euthanasia on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" because surgery to turn her into a man had resulted in "a monster".
Today, his unnamed mother confirmed Mr Verhelst's comments, made in an interview just before his death, that he had been an unwanted child and admitted she had not yet read his letter to her explaining why he asked to die.

"When I saw 'Nancy' for the first time, my dream was shattered. She was so ugly. I had a phantom birth. Her death does not bother me," she told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper.

"I will definitely read it but it will be full of lies. For me, this chapter is closed. Her death does not bother me. I feel no sorrow, no doubt or remorse. We never had a bond."

After a life of being rejected by his parents as a daughter, Mr Verhelst had hormone therapy in 2009, followed by a mastectomy and unsuccessful surgery to construct a ***** in 2012.
Click to expand...
 
Warrigal said:
How easy is it for low income women to get access to effective birth control and/or safe terminations?
Click to expand...

In these parts, low-income women can get FREE birth control. Failing even that, their partner(s) could always be magnanimous and spring a couple of bucks for a few condoms.

What should they do, if after they have their children, their income takes a dive through misadventure, death of a partner or desertion ?
Dump the kids at the nearest orphanage?
Click to expand...

Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

I don't know about anyone else but those are just a few of the possible scenarios I had envisioned before I ever even got within a mile of the Baby Factory. I had savings ... I had insurance ... I had relatives ready to step in and assist ... I had a pre-nup. :playful:

When I was running around the country in my late teens / early 20's, I can assure you that I never made a single "Oopsie!", because I paid attention in junior-high sex-ed class instead of goofing off and thinking the State would always cover-up my mistakes.

It's called being a responsible, mature human being.

... so NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH! :love_heart:

That's what used to happen.
Or they went on the game.
Click to expand...

As I've always said, there should be stringent testing and certification requirements for gun ownership, driving a vehicle and having children.
 
In these parts, low-income women can get FREE birth control. Failing even that, their partner(s) could always be magnanimous and spring a couple of bucks for a few condoms.
Click to expand...
What kind of birth control ? Condoms are not reliable, neither are some male partners. Is the contraceptive pill (or implants) available at very low cost? What about safe medical terminations? Are these affordable for the very poor ? The ones who will need assistance to feed their children ?

We get the impression that affordable health care is rather rationed in the US.
 
Warrigal said:
What kind of birth control ? Condoms are not reliable, neither are some male partners. Is the contraceptive pill (or implants) available at very low cost? What about safe medical terminations? Are these affordable for the very poor ? The ones who will need assistance to feed their children ?
Click to expand...

Condoms are, according to the best sources I can find, 98% effective. That eliminates a LOT of unwanted pregnancies.

The Pill, diaphragms, etc. ARE available at greatly reduced prices through various social welfare agencies, at least in this area.

Now I admit that I don't know about terminations - that's outside my knowledge circle. I get the impression that it would not be an easy thing to find.

If you pre-plan (pills, condoms, abstinence, etc.) then you're going to eliminate almost all the problems associated with procuring a termination. Again, even if these items were NOT readily available for poor people, don't you think that a poor person should think a little bit more before they start procreating like rabbits? Or does the whole religion thing prove to be too hard a dictum to ignore?

(Darn! I SAID I wasn't going to mention it, but when you combine low-income and having babies it's kind of hard to ignore)

We get the impression that affordable health care is rather rationed in the US.
Click to expand...

That's admittedly a huge topic, but like most things it seems the poorer you are the more benefits you can latch onto. It's the so-called working-class schmucks that are screwed every which way from Friday - excuse my French - the ones that are working but not making a living wage. If you report income then you are considered self-sufficient and able to take care of your medical bills no matter HOW much of a fantasy that is, whereas if you don't work at all you're seen as someone that has to be made a ward of the State and cared for from cradle to grave.

Oh, DON'T get me going! :mad:;)
 
I think you overestimate the effectiveness of condoms.
The failure rate is 18 or more pregnancies per woman per year.
Implants are less than 1% per year.
Contraceptive pills are 6% failure rate and diaphragms are 12%.

Even permanent sterilisation has a small failure rate.

In a population as large as yours there will be a lot of unplanned pregnancies, even when contraceptives are available and affordable.
Then there are all the women who are deserted and left with small children. Not all of them can rely on relatives.

By the way, you'll love this - the site I found the contraceptive effectiveness info on ( http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm ) has this at the top
Due to the lapse in government funding, only web sites supporting excepted functions will be updated unless otherwise funded. As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted.

Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at http://www.usa.gov.
Click to expand...
It also has hints on how to ensure maximum effectiveness of the chosen contraceptive method, some of these could be disrupted right now due to the shutdown eg "Get repeat injections on time" and "Take a pill each day".

The shut down may set of a minor baby boom before it is over.
 
Warrigal said:
I think you overestimate the effectiveness of condoms.
The failure rate is 18 or more pregnancies per woman per year.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping you mean per 100 women per year, otherwise they wouldn't have time to cook anything. :devilish:

I'm sorry - I know that number comes from the High Holy CDC but they've been shown to have made MANY mistakes in their stats. 18% is FAR, FAR above what any other creditable source will claim, so as the outlier I doubt CDC's numbers. Besides, try following their content attribution: they quote 2 separate but related divisions of the CDC itself.

That would be like when Union Carbide came out with their "study" that claimed MIC (Methylisocyanate) wasn't all that dangerous, just before the largest industrial accident in history claimed thousands of lives in Bhopal, India. I saw the study and am sure of the timing because I had just started working for them shortly before that happened.

So you'll understand that I don't particularly put a lot of trust into in-bred stats. Most every other family planning agency, doctor's office or social welfare agency will claim my number of 2%.

Implants are less than 1% per year.
Contraceptive pills are 6% failure rate and diaphragms are 12%.
Even permanent sterilisation has a small failure rate.
Click to expand...

The same with these stats. Granted nothing except total abstinence is 100%, but CDC takes the same delight in scaring the populace as I take in scaring little kids at Halloween.

In a population as large as yours there will be a lot of unplanned pregnancies, even when contraceptives are available and affordable.
Then there are all the women who are deserted and left with small children. Not all of them can rely on relatives.
Click to expand...

The problem, as the CDC sources state, is mainly confined to young, uneducated women, so as always the solution to the problem is better education. But don't hold your breath.

By the way, you'll love this - the site I found the contraceptive effectiveness info on ( http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm ) has this at the top

It also has hints on how to ensure maximum effectiveness of the chosen contraceptive method, some of these could be disrupted right now due to the shutdown eg "Get repeat injections on time" and "Take a pill each day".

The shut down may set of a minor baby boom before it is over.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that! That notice has popped up overnight on many of the government websites. I never thought it would lead to a baby pandemic, but it's a distinct possibility.

And here I thought the only thing to fear was blackouts ... :playful:
 
This is such an amazing thread. It contains all the proper arguments, structured with logic and wisdom, based on the unalienable rights of an individual...................














.......................to defend their life with a gun.

However, most of the posters in this thread who are so animate about their right to choose their own life course are anti-gun. Makes me wonder if they really think for themselves or they are brainwashed collectivists chanting a message they receive.
 
Sifuphil said:
I'm hoping you mean per 100 women per year, otherwise they wouldn't have time to cook anything. :devilish:
Click to expand...

That must be what you mean by an "oopsie". A thousand apologies for my error.:eek:

I think the disparity between your figure for condoms and the one I quoted is the difference between 'perfect use' and 'typical use'. There are all sorts of extraneous factors that limit the effectiveness of any particular method.
 
I am not quite sure what you are getting at Jambi, but I have never posted about guns either anti or pro, I don't consider what the U.S.does as far as gun control is concerned is anything to do with me therefore I would never get into a debate about it.
 
Bee said:
I am not quite sure what you are getting at Jambi, but I have never posted about guns either anti or pro, I don't consider what the U.S.does as far as gun control is concerned is anything to do with me therefore I would never get into a debate about it.
Click to expand...


Which is why I said 'most' and not 'all'. :sentimental:
 
Jambi said:
However, most of the posters in this thread who are so animate about their right to choose their own life course are anti-gun. Makes me wonder if they really think for themselves or they are brainwashed collectivists chanting a message they receive.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point, as I don't see how the two topics are even remotely related.

And..... gotta tell ya, I don't think calling anyone a brainwashed collectivist is helping prove your point one way or the other. I may not agree with what you post, however I don't label you or "wonder" how or why you have certain opinions. The debates are informative in my humble opinion and I for one, don't want anyone to feel they can't post because you or someone else are going to start calling them names or insinuate they don't have a brain to think for themselves.
 
I think I thought this was a discussion on Euthanasia, not guns. I get mixed up easily. I haven't thought much about this subject. If put to a vote, I wouldn't vote for it, if somebody used it because a loved one was suffering and at the end of his or her rope, I wouldn't punish anyone. On guns, I got my first .22 cal rifle when I was twelve. The last gun I owned I got rid of earlier this year, in May, I think. It was a .410 sawed off, five shot pump, a nice little gun to have around the house. You might say I had it for home protection(people on drugs will do most anything for a fix). But I moved from Texas to Oklahoma and any sawed off shotgun is illegal in Oklahoma. I gave the gun to my brother in law. I don't mind people owning guns. I never was a hunter but many people do and some show off their pride.
 
I believe that if a person wants to die, they should be allowed to. Their life, their choice, no matter what anyone else thinks of their reasoning.
 
There is a big moral and ethical chasm between letting someone die of natural causes and actually killing them off. Somewhere in the middle is killing oneself or being indifferent to someone who is clearly about to commit suicide. If a person was about to jump off a bridge what would be your reaction ? I doubt that anyone's first thought would be "O well, it is their right to die so I'll just walk on by".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top