ADVERTISEMENT

State sponsored euthanasia-fair or foul?

Should the state be euthanizing people?

  • Yes, it’s no different than capital punishment.

  • Capital punishment should remain but state sponsored euthanasia is a bridge to far.

  • No, the state should never be killing people for any reason.

  • Don’t care either way.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Hoopsdoc1978

Hoopsdoc1978

All-American
Apr 13, 2016
5,889
8,303
113
45
Epsom Indiana
Spanish prison authorities on Tuesday euthanized a man who shot and wounded four people in December and was subsequently wounded in a shootout with the police, rendering him paralyzed and begging to be allowed to die while awaiting trial.
Courts allowed the man's assisted death after rejecting several appeals by his victims, who argued he should face justice. The case even reached the Constitutional Court, which refused to deliberate on it, saying there had been no violation of fundamental rights.
Click to expand...

www.cnn.com

Spanish authorities euthanize jailed gunman ahead of trial | CNN

Spanish prison authorities on Tuesday euthanized a man who shot and wounded four people in December and was subsequently wounded in a shootout with the police, rendering him paralyzed and begging to be allowed to die while awaiting trial.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Fwiw, euthanasia is legal in Spain, has been for about a year.

Also, fwiw, I would vote no on this. The state should NEVER be putting people to death, for ANY reason.
 
Last edited:
I think you left out capital punishment without these unusual circumstances from your poll.

Legalizing state assisted suicide has a slippery slope to state-mandated euthanasia.

Hanging for treason, and murder of Government officials (all three branches) probably needs to stand (but won’t deter any ideological zealots).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoopsdoc1978
TomEric4756 said:
I think you left out capital punishment without these unusual circumstances from your poll.

Legalizing state assisted suicide has a slippery slope to state-mandated euthanasia.

Hanging for treason, and murder of Government officials (all three branches) probably needs to stand (but won’t deter any ideological zealots).
Click to expand...
Poll updated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomEric4756
TomEric4756 said:
Legalizing state assisted suicide has a slippery slope to state-mandated euthanasia.
Click to expand...

how is state assisted euthanasia any different than privately assisted euthanasia, if requested by the patient?

we have privately assisted euthanasia many times every day in the US, even though it isn't labeled as such.

so i guess this means we're on a slippery slope to privately mandated euthanasia.

and is private insurance denying coverage for a possible life saving procedure or drug considered privately mandated euthanasia?

you know, those private insurance "death panels".

in the end, it's totally irrelevant if it's the state or private entities assisting in euthanasia.

the only thing that is relevant, is whether it's the desire of the individual in question, or his family etc if the patient is unconscious and never going to regain consciousness, or the desire of the hospital or insurance company, or some other 3rd party that is making said decision for reasons other than the best interests of the patient.
 
“… and is private insurance denying coverage for a possible life saving procedure or drug considered privately mandated euthanasia?”

No, any death that resulted would get ruled natural causes… I’ll let the lawyers argue about the potential torts. [Private insurance is a contract after all].

Rationing healthcare by a persons means may seem inequitable, but having the government decide seems worse to me.
 
Last edited:
CO. Hoosier said:
I think assisted suicide should be legal with specific guidelines. I don’t want the government anywhere near the final decision.
Click to expand...

when has the govt ever been involved is such decisions, other than in the legality or illegality of, which ONLY govt can deem.

and perhaps definitions aren't your strong point.

if the govt or any private entity, other than the individual in question, are involved in the final decision, then it isn't really "suicide", assisted or not, is it.

DUH!

that said, the one thing more fearful than govt making such calls, are non related private entities making such calls.

especially private entities controlled by hedge fund managers with a financial incentive.
 
Federalism is alive and well in the U.S.. When it comes to euthanasia the state laws in which you reside varies as per this Wiki essay which in part states the following..

Active euthanasia is illegal throughout the United States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths.

While active euthanasia is illegal throughout the U.S., assisted suicide is legal in Colorado, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont, Maine,[147] New Jersey,[148] California,[149] the District of Columbia,[150] one county in New Mexico, and is de facto legal in Montana.[151][152] Additionally, Louisiana specifically prohibits euthanasia in its Bill of Rights as cruel and unusual punishment.[
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU, UncleMark and Hoopsdoc1978
TomEric4756 said:
Rationing healthcare by a persons means may seem inequitable, but having the government decide seems worse to me.
Click to expand...

make my day. i welcome a debate on this.

why is government deciding worse than private insurance controlled by mutual hedge fund managers, who's only agenda is serving their own financial interests and those of their shareholders, deciding?

if you think govt is less considerate of the individual or family than corporations and hedge fund mangers, then you've been living in the alternative universe of dishonest right wing propaganda.

and have absolutely zero idea how corporate or hedge fund decisions are made.

and "NEWS FLASH", Einstein, whether the decisions are made to serve the corps and hedge funds, or made by govt employees, either way they are made by "persons".

only a matter of whom and what are said "persons" serving first and foremost.

when said decisions are made by "persons" working for said hedge fund controlled corporations, their hands are tied to make the decision that the capitalism algorithm dictates, even if that is opposite the best interests of the individual or family.

that isn't the case with "persons" working for the govt.
 
Last edited:
I trust the government to be even less objective, and less responsive, than private insurance.

Hedge funds need to maximize returns, before pursuing social or environmental justice.
 
hoot1 said:
Active euthanasia is illegal throughout the United States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths.
Click to expand...

hoot1 said:
While active euthanasia is illegal throughout the U.S., assisted suicide is legal in Colorado, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont, Maine,[147] New Jersey,[148] California,[149] the District of Columbia,[150] one county in New Mexico, and is de facto legal in Montana.[151][152] Additionally, Louisiana specifically prohibits euthanasia in its Bill of Rights as cruel and unusual punishment.[
Click to expand...

There's different degrees or levels of this question.

Right to Die is one thing. That's allowed and addressed in the first quote above.

Assisted suicide is allowed in certain states and localities, as addressed in the second quote above.

Capital punishment aside, I'd never want the state to be actively euthanizing people, whether they want it or not. Non-state actors should be free to do so. If they're incarcerated and in chronic pain and who would be deemed as capable of making a sound decision if they were free, then the state should allow outside people to assist.

The dirty little secret (that's not really secret) is that most hospice care is assited suicide and/or euthanasia dressed up as palliative care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU, Crayfish57, All4You and 1 other person
TomEric4756 said:
I trust the government to be even less objective, and less responsive, than private insurance.

Hedge funds need to maximize returns, before pursuing social or environmental justice.
Click to expand...

"Hedge funds need to maximize returns, before pursuing social or environmental justice".

which is exactly why "social justice", which absolutely includes health care decisions, need to not be controlled by corporations and hedge funds.

DUH!


"I trust the government to be even less objective, and less responsive, than private insurance".

if truely so, that would make you an idiot regarding the agenda and only prime objective of hedge fund controlled corporate private insurance, vs the objective of govt..



ignorance can be dealt with.

idiocy and dishonesty can't.

and a position can be idiotic, even if the one holding it isn't at all idiotic on all their other positions, and general mental capacity.

sorry bout the "idiot" reference, but reality is, "idiocy" on positions absolutely is a thing, and absolutely plays a huge part in many political discussions, as much as the politically correct woke wish it didn't.

and unfortunately, liberal idiots, (those exist too), greatly restrict themselves by self restricting the use of terms like "idiot" and "liars", while not so much the case with "conservatives". (another "woke" term we're semi mandated to use to refer to said individuals).

such self bans by the left but not self imposed by the right, put the left at a huge disadvantage in all such debates.

some things are too important to fight for from a huge disadvantaged position.. healthcare is one, and i'm not woke, so i won't self disadvantage myself so..

in truth, we just can't credibly solve or even credibly debate many of our political issues, including social ones, without acknowledging and addressing the part that idiocy and racism and bigotry and faux religious authoritarianism play in such issues.

just not possible.

if you wish to dispute my saying your thinking on the issue of who backs individuals more, hedge fund controlled corporations or the govt, is "idiocy", go for it.

that said, govt can rule against the individual as well when it comes down to the best interests of the citizenry vs corporate profits, and often does.

but at least the govt, or persons working for the govt, have the option of siding with the individual/citizenry over money and corporate profits.

those working for and beholden to the financial interests of hedge fund owned corporations, do not have that option long term and in general, even if they can get away with it on an isolated basis at times.

they once could. no longer is that so.
 
UncleMark said:
There's different degrees or levels of this question.

Right to Die is one thing. That's allowed and addressed in the first quote above.

Assisted suicide is allowed in certain states and localities, as addressed in the second quote above.

Capital punishment aside, I'd never want the state to be actively euthanizing people, whether they want it or not. Non-state actors should be free to do so. If they're incarcerated and in chronic pain and who would be deemed as capable of making a sound decision if they were free, then the state should allow outside people to assist.

The dirty little secret (that's not really secret) is that most hospice care is assited suicide and/or euthanasia dressed up as palliative care.
Click to expand...
what about Colt's fans?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: larsIU, Hoopsdoc1978, Lucy01 and 1 other person
Hoopsdoc1978 said:
www.cnn.com

Spanish authorities euthanize jailed gunman ahead of trial | CNN

Spanish prison authorities on Tuesday euthanized a man who shot and wounded four people in December and was subsequently wounded in a shootout with the police, rendering him paralyzed and begging to be allowed to die while awaiting trial.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Fwiw, euthanasia is legal in Spain, has been for about a year.

Also, fwiw, I would vote no on this. The state should NEVER be putting people to death, for ANY reason.
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to helping people who want to die achieve that goal, but the state should never, ever, ever be involved. Make it legal, but leave it up to private practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUINSB, larsIU, Hoopsdoc1978 and 1 other person
UncleMark said:
The dirty little secret (that's not really secret) is that most hospice care is assited suicide and/or euthanasia dressed up as palliative care.
Click to expand...
My dad dealt with congestive heart failure for years. It reached a critical stage at the start of Covid. He had 2 or 3 ambulance runs alone to the Bloomington Hospital to have fluid drained. No family was allowed in his room. My dad’s heart Doc had told him the last med he prescribed would probably work for 2/3 years. When it quit working there was no other med to go to. He had been in the med a few months over 3 years.

So dad’s choice was to die alone in a cold hospital room or come home and live out his last days with his family around him 24/7 and hospice care giving him morphine for the pain. The last words I had with dad was a phone call from one of his granddaughters. I put her on speaker phone and she told him she loved him. My dad opened his eyes and said he loved her and all of us. The next few days he never spoke again. That night when he used the word “love” may have been the only time I heard him use the word.

My son’s middle name is Joel being named after my dad. Dad lived till a few minutes after midnight making it to his grandson’s birthday on May 8th

Our family never considered hospice as assisted suicide.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Crayfish57
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back