Jack Kevorkian released from prison...

The_Dude · Post by **The_Dude** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:50 pm

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgaz ... 311213.htm

Thoughts?

Are you for or against euthanasia?

inkspot · Post by **inkspot** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:50 pm

I am all for euthanasia. A terminally ill person shouldn't be made to suffer because someone else thinks it is wrong for them to end their own life. I am glad to see the good doctor is getting out of prison.

sevesd93 · Post by **sevesd93** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:31 pm

He is probably the only doctor in the world that actually helped someone the way they wanted to be helped.

deek · Post by **deek** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:35 pm

A vegetable is no life for a human being...if family or spouse is okay with pulling the plug, they should be allowed to make that decision...same for someone that has the ability to clearly think for themselves and wants to die instead of suffer...

poopstains · Post by **poopstains** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:27 am

I am absolutely torn on this, I don't know what to think about the whole early death thing.

Post by **cwallace** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:46 am

He spent more time in jail that some people who have gone out and maliciously killed other people...

That is lame in itself...

If you want to die...then die...just don't take anyone else with you that didn't want to go too.

Chris

Al Quandt · Post by **Al Quandt** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:57 pm

hell, how long is his waiting list?

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:38 pm

Terry Schiavo !

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:06 pm

WBOB wrote:Terry Schiavo !

Don't get me started on that one again...

I am generally not in favor of euthenasia. Mainly because it will start with the patient deciding to be euthenized, then it will become families making the call against the patient's will, then judges making the call against both the patient's and the families' will. If a person wants to commit suicide, just go do it already, but when the State gets involved it's going to become a big problem.

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:07 pm

I think that euthansia is a viable option in some cases, but those people need to be made to jump through hoops to make it happen - figuratively, not literally (I'm not an advocate of forcing the terminally ill to engage in gymnastics).

First the patient should have to sign a 'living will' type of document, in front of an attorney or notary. Second, the patient should be made to participate in some sort of counseling to make sure they know and understand the ramifications of their decision (including forfeiture of life insurance policies, etc.). Third, there should be a sign-off by the patient's doctor that the patient is beyond the reach of reasonable medical care. Then and only then should a patient be given the go ahead for euthanasia.

And ALL of this should be paid for out-of-pocket. My insurance rates shouldn't go up because someone else wants to die.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:54 pm

MrSpall wrote:And ALL of this should be paid for out-of-pocket. My insurance rates shouldn't go up because someone else wants to die.

But it's okay for them to go up because of the costs incurred by the indefinite amount of care required to keep that terminally ill patient alive against their wishes?

I think I agree with a lot of what you said, but that last statement is just stupid. Keeping that patient alive will cost your insurance company MORE money. . .bad logic, man.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:07 pm

Garr wrote:
MrSpall wrote:And ALL of this should be paid for out-of-pocket. My insurance rates shouldn't go up because someone else wants to die.
But it's okay for them to go up because of the costs incurred by the indefinite amount of care required to keep that terminally ill patient alive against their wishes?

I think I agree with a lot of what you said, but that last statement is just stupid. Keeping that patient alive will cost your insurance company MORE money. . .bad logic, man.

Oh, and I agree with that too. If a person wishes for life saving measures to stop, they should stop immediately. If a teenage kid decides he doesn't want to go through chemo again, he shouldn't have to.

deek · Post by **deek** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:25 pm

bassjones wrote:
Garr wrote:
MrSpall wrote:And ALL of this should be paid for out-of-pocket. My insurance rates shouldn't go up because someone else wants to die.
But it's okay for them to go up because of the costs incurred by the indefinite amount of care required to keep that terminally ill patient alive against their wishes?

I think I agree with a lot of what you said, but that last statement is just stupid. Keeping that patient alive will cost your insurance company MORE money. . .bad logic, man.
Oh, and I agree with that too. If a person wishes for life saving measures to stop, they should stop immediately. If a teenage kid decides he doesn't want to go through chemo again, he shouldn't have to.

And I think this is why this is such a tough issue...so is it an "age" thing. If someone is under 13 years old, they don't get a choice?

Heck, I know some people that at age 40 would make a decision one day to pull the plug, but give them a few hours, and they would reconsider. So, each case is different (which obviously makes it hard to draft a rule) and everyone is never going to agree to one thing...

Makes good debate, but no single agreed upon solution...

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:33 pm

If a family and the patient decide to "pull the plug", it should be pulled. That's entirely different than causing the death.

My argument with the Schiavo case was that it wasn't simply pulling the plug, but her dying of starvation over the course of weeks. That's not letting her go, that's killing her by starving her to death. Big difference.