An autopsy wasn’t necessary to prove that half her brain was gone. In several of the newcasts they showed a picture of a CT scan of her brain, and you could see this easily. Yet they always flashed this by quickly and I never heard anyone talk about it. I’m not sure why there wasn’t a doctor on CNN holding up images of a few CT slices and saying “See all this blue area? There should be brain here.”
endgamer711 wrote:
So if your death is certain and imminent, where’s the harm in dying more comfortably as a whole person, rather than as a helpless laboratory preparation on a hospital bed?
Most physicians here in Oregon have no problem whatsoever with the assisted suicide law.
So far, it has never done anyone harm here."
First of all, I fully reject your statments that “it has never done harm” and that “most physicians here in Oregon have no problem whatsoever.”
I’ll bet you the physicians have done a TON of soul searching on this one. How do you reconcile the Oath with this?
You don’t.
Again, a world of conceptual difference between easing the pain when the disease is taking your life and activelly ending a life.
On a side note, have you guys noticed that “party lines” are as blurred on this issue as you are likely to see.
Check out some of the posters for and against. I contend that this is one of those issues that has very little to do with party.
Let me add to the confusion: I think Jeb Bush is a damn fool to be pursuing this further.
I’ll say it again if he runs.
Oh, I’m up on you about 47-0, lumpy. I’m keeping count of the things and times I disagree with the straight party platform/officials from the Republicans.
Signed,
The Republican (JeffR)
[quote]JeffR wrote:
First of all, I fully reject your statments that “it has never done harm” and that “most physicians here in Oregon have no problem whatsoever.”
I’ll bet you the physicians have done a TON of soul searching on this one. How do you reconcile the Oath with this?
[/quote]
I told you the reconciliation. It’s in how you define harm.
I’m sure you can find physicians here who won’t do business on assisted suicide, but you can find more who will, especially if they have treated the person in question for a long time. This law is truly only applied when all the alternatives are worse. Yes, there are worse things than dying.
This is why the pro-life contingent clings to such ridiculous straws in these end of life arguments: they don’t like to admit that life is not an unalloyed, permanent good. They desperately need that axiom in order to sound like they make sense.
I would like to point out that under our law here in Oregon, assisted suicide remains entirely under the patient’s control. More people apply for and are granted assistance than actually use that assistance. Being prepared for the worst seems to give them considerable reassurance, relief from the fear that medical technology will make their death unbearable.
But of course that won’t matter to an ideologue. Is there some reason I should care about your political affiliations?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Again, a world of conceptual difference between easing the pain when the disease is taking your life and activelly ending a life.
[/quote]
You may think so, but I don’t any longer. When my dad died in home hospice from cancer, in his final days I really wish we had done the latter. There was nothing further for him or from him but labored breathing and occasional signs of distress. He slowly died, it took many days. They drugged him with Atavan to suppress any final commotion. It was all a show for us on-lookers. A show at his expense.
As long as I live, I shall never outlive my share of the guilt for the manner of his death.
When later my sister in law was suffering from a spinal melanoma and was in the final stages, also in home hospice, she, my brother and the professionals in attendance agreed that control of her pain required more morphine than she would be able to tolerate. And they gave it to her, and she expired. Thank goodness.
She was an RN, by the way, so she knew perfectly well what she was asking for, and it wasn’t pain relief.
This last scenario is not at all rare.
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1119798101190.images-black-lagoon.jpg
No matter what the autopsy revealed, the revanchist Governor Bush cannot take his defeat gracefully. Just like Hitler, Franco and Pinochet, all facist dictators, the bloodthirsty governor has unleashed his repressive apparatus upon an innocent citizen, under the guise of an investigation, thus wasting taxpayers money. Shame on you Governor!
I am glad they found she had no hope of recovery. How horrible would it have been if they found otherwise?
I believe in the right to die.
I was on her parents side in this case because I didn’t trust her cheating husband or his crazy lawyer.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am glad they found she had no hope of recovery. How horrible would it have been if they found otherwise?
I believe in the right to die.
I was on her parents side in this case because I didn’t trust her cheating husband or his crazy lawyer.[/quote]
Your wife loses all brain function for years and you having any type of a relationship with another woman equals “common cheating”? It would be different if she was just in a coma, because there may be a chance of eventual recovery, but that wasn’t the case. She was gone. The only thing that remained was her body so why label him like that? Would you do differently in that same position, and if so, how?