Gyroscopic Investing

Personally, from a religious perspective I believe choosing to end ones life is wrong regardless of the method used (e.g. suicide or assisted suicide).  However, I also believe many, many, many other things I or others do is also wrong from God's perspective and if we repent we are forgiven because of Christ taking all our sins to the grave.  Thus, I have the opinion that assisted suicide should be a personal and legal choice as it impacts only the one making the decision (and their friends and families which I trust they would have had the discussion with ahead of time).  If the person choosing assisted suicide suffers in hell for eternity because he violated God's commands, he did it to himself.  If God chooses to be gracious and merciful, then there are no bad consequences for avoiding the temporal pain and suffering at the end of ones life.  After all, Jesus the God/man did choose to die while on the cross - God cannot be killed by any human unless He allows it. 

... Mountaineer

Edited to change wording to assisted suicide from euthanasia.

MangoMan wrote: but why shouldn't a person get to make that call on their own life, with a physician's help, particularly if they are in chronic pain and/or terminally ill?

So you mean assisted suicide, not euthanasia. Right?
I'm all for that. Kevorkian.

For starters, unless you are going to pass a law mandating physicians cooperate (welcome to Europe), there are many physicians who would not want any part of that (for any number of reasons including the fact that they most certainly did not go to medical school for that).

Second, out of curiosity, do you believe in the death penalty, and if not, why not?

Benko wrote: For starters, unless you are going to pass a law mandating physicians cooperate (welcome to Europe), there are many physicians who would not want any part of that (for any number of reasons including the fact that they most certainly did not go to medical school for that).

Is there any demand for such a law in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, where physician-assisted suicide is legal? I can't recall ever hearing anything on the subject… then again, I'm not a doctor.

[shadow=red,left][/shadow]Physician assisted suicide is an interesting topic, but I always feel like it serves as a distraction from the much important issue, end-of-life care.

We do such a bad job with this infinitely less complicated, but much more commonly encountered issue that it seems silly (to me) to worry about physician assisted suicide when we are spending billions of dollars on end of life care that is futile, and often even cruel.

AdamA wrote: [shadow=red,left][/shadow]Physician assisted suicide is an interesting topic, but I always feel like it serves as a distraction from the much important issue, end-of-life care.

We do such a bad job with this infinitely less complicated, but much more commonly encountered issue that it seems silly (to me) to worry about physician assisted suicide when we are spending billions of dollars on end of life care that is futile, and often even cruel.

An excellent reason to have a Durable Power of Attorney and a Durable Medical Power of Attorney that specifies ones wishes, such as DNR, feeding tubes, etc.  That way, at least someone else won't be spending a buttload of money if the patient did not desire it.

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote:

Benko wrote: For starters, unless you are going to pass a law mandating physicians cooperate (welcome to Europe), there are many physicians who would not want any part of that (for any number of reasons including the fact that they most certainly did not go to medical school for that).

Is there any demand for such a law in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, where physician-assisted suicide is legal? I can't recall ever hearing anything on the subject… then again, I'm not a doctor.

I have no idea what the demand is. 

I only posted because no one may have thought about the docs end of things i.e. I don't think it is realistic to assume because you pass a law saying it is OK that e.g. every doctor is going to be comfortable being involved. 

Then there is the medical issues i.e. it is one thing if you have a patient with terminal cancer in severe pain who is going to remain in severe pain for the rest of their relatively short life.  But there are other kinds of cases e.g.

"Kevorkian...His first public assisted suicide, of Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old woman diagnosed in 1989 with Alzheimer's disease"

A lot more docs would be comfortable helping the terminal cancer patient die, than the patient with Alzheimers.

Then of course you need to prevent relatives who e.g. want to bump someone off from gaming the system.
-------------------------------------------------------------

"We are spending billions of dollars on end of life care that is futile, and often even cruel."

This is a really good point and true.  Complex topic perhaps worth of another thread.  But accepting that someone is going to die is not an easy thing (perhaps moreso in this culture than other countries??).

Honestly Benko, even if it's legal, doctors with ethical qualms don't have to do it. Eliminating a restriction doesn't suddenly make the previously-restricted thing mandatory. Even if 99% of doctors didn't want to do it, that's fine. You'd just find someone who did.

As for Alzheimers, personally I would definitely prefer assisted suicide to Alzheimers, even years and years of it. My grandmother wasted away afflicted with that horrifying condition and it's something I never, ever want to experience. I would probably prefer to blow my brains out or jump off a cliff than slowly and irreversibly lose my mind until I became a personality-less husk. That's how strongly I feel about it.

AdamA wrote: [shadow=red,left][/shadow]Physician assisted suicide is an interesting topic, but I always feel like it serves as a distraction from the much important issue, end-of-life care.

We do such a bad job with this infinitely less complicated, but much more commonly encountered issue that it seems silly (to me) to worry about physician assisted suicide when we are spending billions of dollars on end of life care that is futile, and often even cruel.

Just because we are failing to properly care for our elderly during the end of their lives under normal circumstances doesn't mean that it isn't worth discussing the minority of cases where assisted suicide is relevant.  Are we so strapped for time that we can only discuss two or three topics in our society at a time and everything else is a "distraction" or does this go back to the "How Stupid Are We" topic?

Personally, I'm Pro-Life (as in anti-abortion) but I'm also pro-assisted suicide.  My reasons do not stem from any religious foundation.  I'm pro-euthanasia as long as there was a living will.  If not it gets very tricky because you get into those competing next of kin type situations where the spouse and parents are often at odds over what the patient would have wanted.

RuralEngineer wrote:

AdamA wrote: [shadow=red,left][/shadow]Physician assisted suicide is an interesting topic, but I always feel like it serves as a distraction from the much important issue, end-of-life care.

We do such a bad job with this infinitely less complicated, but much more commonly encountered issue that it seems silly (to me) to worry about physician assisted suicide when we are spending billions of dollars on end of life care that is futile, and often even cruel.

Just because we are failing to properly care for our elderly during the end of their lives under normal circumstances doesn't mean that it isn't worth discussing the minority of cases where assisted suicide is relevant.  Are we so strapped for time that we can only discuss two or three topics in our society at a time and everything else is a "distraction" or does this go back to the "How Stupid Are We" topic?

I agree with you.  I wasn't try to say that it wasn't worth discussing.  It's just that I think it's important that the two get discussed together.  Physician assisted suicide is a much more colorful topic, and I think it tends to overshadow end-of-life care b/c it's kind of dull, but, in my opinion, much more pressing b/c of it's high cost. 

MangoMan wrote:

Benko wrote: For starters, unless you are going to pass a law mandating physicians cooperate (welcome to Europe), there are many physicians who would not want any part of that (for any number of reasons including the fact that they most certainly did not go to medical school for that).

Second, out of curiosity, do you believe in the death penalty, and if not, why not?

I agree with PS that making it legal is far from mandating physician cooperation, and that there will always be some compassionate doctors who would be willing participants even if the majority found it distasteful, in violation of the Hypocratic Oath, or in conflict with their religious views.

As far as the death penalty goes, I am in favor of it as long as it is done in a painless manner such as lethal injection. I think the electric chair is barbaric. I also think the appeals process from conviction to execution is too drawn out and costly to the public. While we're at it, I think that incarcerated criminals of all violent types have way too many rights and privileges making their stay much too comfortable. I would be in favor of shorter but more severe punishment for class X felonies. But I digress off topic.

I'm okay with the death penalty if it is provided at the point of service by the intended victim. :-)
However, I don't want the state to have the power to kill people, whether with drones or the electric chair.

Libertarian666 wrote:
I'm okay with the death penalty if it is provided at the point of service by the intended victim. :-)
However, I don't want the state to have the power to kill people, whether with drones or the electric chair.

EXCELLENT CHOICE!  I pack 'em (45ACP), you stack 'em (perps).  2nd Amendment for all!  Wyatt Earp still is the way to go

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm okay with the death penalty if it is provided at the point of service by the intended victim. :-)
However, I don't want the state to have the power to kill people, whether with drones or the electric chair.

EXCELLENT CHOICE!  I pack 'em (45ACP), you stack 'em (perps).  2nd Amendment for all!  Wyatt Earp still is the way to go

It's interesting how bad a rap the "wild west" gets. The murder rate was far lower then compared to today.

[img width=500]http://blog.joehuffman.org/wp-content/u ... j53JB1.jpg[/img]

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2014/01/06/i ... g-graphic/

Desert wrote: Looks like we need more alcohol, more drugs and more guns.

Desert,
I suspect you said that tongue-in cheek, but the fundamental premise may be "you can't legislate morality" and whenever a society does so, there are many who will try to beat the system (including the white ghetto issues under discussion) to get what they want.  Restricting drugs and alcohol runs the price up so those who want them will have to resort to getting them at low cost (e.g. stealing).  All gun control does is put relatively more guns in the hands of criminals instead of the more ethical populace.  One could make a case that responsible use and widely available supplies of guns, alcohol, drugs, and ethics are linked.  Remove the ultimate source of ethics and society runs astray.  I hesitate to get into prostitution, gambling, and the plethora of other "crimes" in which man engages but I expect they fall into a similar "you can't legislate morality" arena.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Desert wrote: Looks like we need more alcohol, more drugs and more guns.

Desert,
I suspect you said that tongue-in cheek, but the fundamental premise may be "you can't legislate morality" and whenever a society does so, there are many who will try to beat the system (including the white ghetto issues under discussion) to get what they want.  Restricting drugs and alcohol runs the price up so those who want them will have to resort to getting them at low cost (e.g. stealing).  All gun control does is put relatively more guns in the hands of criminals instead of the more ethical populace.  One could make a case that responsible use and widely available supplies of guns, alcohol, drugs, and ethics are linked.  Remove the ultimate source of ethics and society runs astray.  I hesitate to get into prostitution, gambling, and the plethora of other "crimes" in which man engages but I expect they fall into a similar "you can't legislate morality" arena.

... Mountaineer

Yeah, that comment was tongue in cheek.  I should have put a smiley in there.  I agree, regarding the attempt to legislate morality.  Prohibition was a nightmare, and the war on drugs hasn't been very successful either.  I'd include assisted suicide in this category too.  Prostitution is a whole separate, complex topic, since it often involves a coerced participant.

That is not inherent to that occupation any more than it is to any other occupation. Of course, occupations that are illegal tend to have much worse working conditions because the participants can't avail themselves of normal legal protections, but that is an argument for legalization, not against it.

Surprised we haven't seen "Suicide Island" yet with a nice trip to the Caribbean to end your life in peace and quiet with the help of a physician.

Could be a lucrative business.

Desert wrote: Um, no.  It's different.  Without going into the gory details, the prostitution trade tends to involve minors, and when they're taken advantage of, it's a bit more severe than the local Bob Evans failing to pay overtime.

Sure, but isn't that the crime, then? It's perfectly possible for two consenting adults to pay for sex without any kind of exploitation going on. In fact, that's pretty much what porn is. It's funny that you can legally pay someone to have sex with you when there's a camera rolling, but not when you're alone!

Pointedstick wrote: It's funny that you can legally pay someone to have sex with you when there's a camera rolling, but not when you're alone!

That a woman can give sex away for free to whomever she wants but if she sells it, she's a criminal, only goes to prove that it's a man's world.

What this has to do with "Assisted Suicide", I don't know, but here we are.

Desert wrote: So I stand by my statement that coercion is a bigger problem in prostitution than other "occupations."

I'll maintain that it's a bigger problem because it's illegal. When something is banned, it will tend to repel normal people and attract seedy criminal types who don't care about breaking other laws. This is why the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol is generally a nonviolent affair but the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana (a much softer and less addictive drug) is so violent; the banned industry attracts violent criminals. So too with prostitution. If you're already breaking the law by being a pimp or a madam, why not do some child sex trafficking on the side? You can easily plug into your existing "police avoidance" infrastructure. By contrast, who was ever forced into pornography in countries where it's legal? When your industry is legal, you don't have to coerce people. They come to your door and ask for a job.

ns3 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It's funny that you can legally pay someone to have sex with you when there's a camera rolling, but not when you're alone!

That a woman can give sex away for free to whomever she wants but if she sells it, she's a criminal, only goes to prove that it's a man's world.

What this has to do with "Assisted Suicide", I don't know, but here we are.

Actually that is not proof that it's a man's world at all. Legal prostitution is disliked by most women because it gives men more options.

Libertarian666 wrote:

ns3 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It's funny that you can legally pay someone to have sex with you when there's a camera rolling, but not when you're alone!

That a woman can give sex away for free to whomever she wants but if she sells it, she's a criminal, only goes to prove that it's a man's world.

What this has to do with "Assisted Suicide", I don't know, but here we are.

Actually that is not proof that it's a man's world at all. Legal prostitution is disliked by most women because it gives men more options.

100% correct.

Legal prostitution would be a death blow to expensive dinners, movie theaters, jewelry, wedding planners etc.

It's a much more honest relationship than getting sucked into a relationship based on lust. Much cheaper also.

Desert wrote: I would still wonder where the legalization would stop, but maybe my view of human nature is too negative at the moment.

Hmm, what exactly are you referring to here? I'm not quite sure.

Desert wrote: Sorry, I didn't explain well.  What I mean is that at first it would be ok for consenting adults, but then it could be argued for consenting teenagers as long as they're at least 14... and on from there.

What's wrong with that being legal? I mean, while I wouldn't want my 14 year-old to have sex with a prostitute, I wouldn't want him to be thrown in jail for it even more.

Desert wrote:   Well, I guess we agree on how the legality would progress! 

Well, what if your 14 year old was the prostitute, and the client was Gary Busey?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T2S8GHzxqc

If my 14 year-old was a prostitute, I think I will have failed pretty dramatically as a parent. How would jailing Gary Busey (which wouldn't even happen since he's a celebrity) help my poor child? And how would sending my hypothetical prostitute child to jail or juvenile hall help them? All they would learn there is how to be a better delinquent.

I guess I don't see how locking people up in concrete boxes helps them. And after all, that's the point of making something illegal. In my mind, saying that something should be illegal is basically another way of saying, "society would be improved if this person could be either trapped in a small concrete box for a period of time or killed." If you don't believe that, then you ought to rethink the utility of the act being illegal.

Yes, there are some crimes that I think definitely warrant it. Unrepentant murder or rape, repeated serious offenses that demonstrate a lack of psychological compatibility with civilization, things like that.

In my mind, there is only one punishment that makes any sense in the context of a government criminal justice system: life imprisonment. Anything less than life and all you've done is make the prisoner into a better criminal such that his eventual release will actually make society less safe as a seasoned, experienced predator without any money or or useful skills is dumped onto the streets. Putting someone in a cage is a pretty drastic act, if you really think about it. The psychological effects are devastating, to say nothing of the kinds of people you're forced to socialize with in prison and how your other social relationships and skills will wither during the imprisonment. If someone is so dangerous that he needs to be kept away from society, doing so for a limited period of time certainly isn't going to magically reform him; it had better be for the rest of his life.

This punishment should only be meted out in the case where it is determined that the guilty party is so dangerous that he needs to be kept away from the rest of society. In all other less serious cases, restitution and compensation make much more sense IMHO. They are better for the victim and offer the guilty party himself a chance to reform himself in his own society (which becomes impossible once you imprison him IMHO).

Why life imprisonment instead of execution? In case the courts turn out to have made a mistake (it happens), in which case, the victim should be owed a lot of money and extensive psychological counseling to help him re-integrate back into normal society.

And of course death is sometimes a side effect of self-defense, but that's the risk you take when you attack someone.