INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: bodie on April 04, 2011, 03:14:32 AM
-
Here in the UK medically assisted suicide is unlawful. Even for those terminally ill, or in great pain. Therefore we give a lot of our business to the
Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland - where it is quite lawful to do this. Recently a few stories in the press have popped up about the growing numbers
of people using this service when they are quite healthy and not terminally ill. I have read that 1 in 5 users of this service are not in fact ill, but just
have chosen the time to end it all?
Do you think we should be allowed to make the decision of when we die, regardless of our state of health?
-
Yes, of course. That's one of the things that are 100% clear to me. You have an absolute right to make decisions concerning your own body, including, of course, when it should die.
-
Right to die is even more important than right to live
-
This is one case where America is better than the UK. In America, if you want to die, you can buy a gun and shoot yourself. In Britain, you have to ask government permission before wiping your nose. :headbang:
-
Or you can buy a gun and shoot someone else, whether they like it or not ;)
-
This is one case where America is better than the UK. In America, if you want to die, you can buy a gun and shoot yourself. In Britain, you have to ask government permission before wiping your nose. :headbang:
Eh, the tube in the car connected to it's exhaust is a excellent choice if you can't get a gun.
-
This is one case where America is better than the UK. In America, if you want to die, you can buy a gun and shoot yourself. In Britain, you have to ask government permission before wiping your nose. :headbang:
Eh, the tube in the car connected to it's exhaust is a excellent choice if you can't get a gun.
And American cars are gas-guzzling behemoths that emit chemicals that European cars can only dream about. America is still better. :2thumbsup:
-
Or you can buy a gun and shoot someone else, whether they like it or not ;)
Yes, much better that just the state and the criminals (a kind of tautology) have guns. Just look at Libya.
-
FFS, not this shit again...
-
FFS, not this shit again...
:LMAO:
-
FFS, not this shit again...
Yes, because you simply don't get it. My grandmother was 9 the last time the military killed 5 totally innocent protesters in Sweden. The pieces of shit were freed in court for it. The only military punished was a trumpeter blowing "ceasefire"(!)
The people should be able to give the authorities what they deserve when they murder innocent people. Authorities abusing their power should simply pay with their blood for it.
-
No YOU are the one who dosen't get it
The chances of me being killed by another citizen far outweigh the chances of me being killed by a policeman or soldier
If I lived in a place like Libya then no shit, my views on how I want my country to be run would be different, because I would BE - IN - A - DIFFERENT - COUNTRY
and your grandmother was 9? When was that then? 2003? didn't think so
-
1931, 80 years ago. That's a short period in a historical view.
But how come that you could be shot by another citizen? What's the point with gun laws then? That's just the thing that gun laws supposedly should prevent.
-
YOu'll never be able to prevent every single shot fired in anger, obviously
The people who do have guns here though aren't the kinda people I associate with
And before you say they might break into my house, yes they might, but that isn't gonna be lessened by legalising guns either, is it?
The gun crime here is mostly gang-related, and as I'm not a drug dealer or living in Moss Side, I don't give a shit to be honest (selfish, yes)
If my neighbours all had guns though, it would be much more likely I would be a victim of gun crime as guns would be properly brought to my neighbourhood
-
Good. Never ever complain, if you become a crime victim due to a situation that a gun could have saved you from.
-
Um, I think I have a right to complain if I have to endure a prolonged attack.
Executing bullies would make life easier too, doesn't mean Ican't complain if I'm treated like shit, just because I don't advocate murder.
It's about weighing up the likeliness of something happening, as well as the pros and cons of guns lege
-
If you say that it's right that the state makes you helpless, you don't deserve pity if you can't defend yourself, IMHO.
-
Don't pity me then, that's fine with me
There are other means of denfending yourself
OK they might not be as lethal and not always as effective, but like I said, the costs of legalising guns IN MY COUNTRY far outweigh the benefits imo, so I would rather take my chance on bashing an intruder over the head and calling the cops
-
can't believe I am having this FUCKING conversation again
-
Actually, there were less crimes in the UK (and in Sweden too) back when you could buy a gun as easily as in the US. Anti-gun propaganda seems to work like a lobotomy on people who believe in it.
-
Do you think we should be allowed to make the decision of when we die, regardless of our state of health?
I don't know. I like the idea of being able to choose for oneself to end one's suffering. However, in some cases, people use suicide as a permanent solution to a temporary problem, if that makes any sense.
I just read about an 18 year old who killed herself with an overdose because she was depressed about her boyfriend and about being in debt.
My cousin tried to kill herself when she was 15 because she was raped and the rapist and his friends tormented her at school over it. One of the tormentors my cousin thought was her friend actually slipped a a date rape drug into her Coca Cola and watched and did nothing to help as the young man raped her. Thank goodness she wasn't successful in ending her life.
-
What I care about most is protecting myself and my immediate family. That means the gun crime in my area. Guns crime is unheard of where I live. I don't wanna bring guns into my townn, regardless of what other people say about gun crime historically or across the world
-
Do you think we should be allowed to make the decision of when we die, regardless of our state of health?
I don't know. I like the idea of being able to choose for oneself to end one's suffering. However, in some cases, people use suicide as a permanent solution to a temporary problem, if that makes any sense.
I just read about an 18 year old who killed herself with an overdose because she was depressed about her boyfriend and about being in debt.
My cousin tried to kill herself when she was 15 because she was raped and the rapist and his friends tormented her at school over it. One of the tormentors my cousin thought was her friend actually slipped a a date rape drug into her Coca Cola and watched and did nothing to help as the young man raped her. Thank goodness she wasn't successful in ending her life.
But just because a lot of young people kill themselves when life would have got better doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to at all. If i want to end my life, however much suffering I am experiencing and however small that suffering is judged by others, that should be my right 100%
-
Never a gun crime in a city as big as Manchester? Marvellous. ::)
-
I think we should have the right to end our life when we see fit.
I hate the saying "permanent solution to a temporary problem". The girl who was raped, her problem isn't temporary. She's gonna have to live with the trauma of the rape for the rest of her life.
The girl in debt and with boyfriend issues, that doesn't sound temporary either especially if she has no means at all to pay off the debt.
It's dismissive to say that someone's problems are only temporary. Sometimes that may well be the case but a lot of the time, it isn't.
-
I wasn't talking about manchester ::)
-
The last murder in my parish was about 1750, but in town it's a couple of murders every year, and it's a small town with 35000 people.
-
I have no doubt that people who are terminally ill should be given help to end it if that is what they want to do. The fact that this is illegal is one of my pet peeves.
I'm not so sure that people who choose to end there life for other reasons should be given that same help though. I'm kinda on the fence with this issue.
I would probably say no, simply because if someone able-bodied does choose to kill themselves, it can be so easily done. I'm not sure that we need Dignitas style clinics to achieve this.
-
I kinda agree, but how painless is it at the Dignitas clinics?
-
This article has a lot of information about Dignitas clinics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/18/assisted-suicide-dignitas-house
-
As for the gun isssue. I can't speak for any other country, but there is no reason to legalize hand guns in Britain. The people of Britain do not want it, and gun crime is not a major issue here, outwith gang culture.
Knives are easy to get in Britain. In a large part of Scotland knife crime is out of control. People carry knives for protection against other people who carry knives. Knife attacks are pretty common in that part of Scotland. Thankfully, they are usually not fatal. Allowing these people to carry guns instead of knives seems like insanity to me, and thankfully also to the overwhelming majority of people in my country.
-
"The people of Britain do not want it". I suppose you had a referendum then, before guns were restricted for the first time. ::)
-
Knives are easy to get in Britain. In a large part of Scotland knife crime is out of control. People carry knives for protection against other people who carry knives. Knife attacks are pretty common in that part of Scotland. Thankfully, they are usually not fatal. Allowing these people to carry guns instead of knives seems like insanity to me, and thankfully also to the overwhelming majority of people in my country.
this is exactly how I see it. And makes sense completely to me
As for a referendum, I would be fine with that. I think we can be pretty sure that most people are definitely against it tho
-
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. Only Singapore has a lower rate of gun homicides. The overall homicide rate is also low. In England and Wales (the most populous part of the United Kingdom) the rate is below the EU average and about four times lower than that of the United States. Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm, and both the public and the police prefer this to continue. Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation.
-
I think we should have the right to end our life when we see fit.
I hate the saying "permanent solution to a temporary problem". The girl who was raped, her problem isn't temporary. She's gonna have to live with the trauma of the rape for the rest of her life.
The girl in debt and with boyfriend issues, that doesn't sound temporary either especially if she has no means at all to pay off the debt.
It's dismissive to say that someone's problems are only temporary. Sometimes that may well be the case but a lot of the time, it isn't.
You make a valid point, but my point is that my cousin is living with that trauma as opposed to dying over it. I think she regretted trying to kill herself shortly after she woke up in the Children's hospital and she was glad that she was still alive. She is pregnant now with her first baby, which is due later this month.
Her mother (my aunt, my mother's youngest sister) recently died from a recurrence of breast cancer. Although she very much wanted to live to see her granchild born, that was not possible. The cancer, which was different from the original breast cancer that she had gotten rid of, spread to her brain last Christmas and she was in horrible pain near the end. If my aunt has wanted a large dose of pain-killers to end her suffering, IMO that would have been a permanent solution to a permanent problem.
-
But who gets to judge what's a temporary problem and what's permanent?
Also even if it IS temporary suffering, some people still will not want to go through that. and why should they have to?
-
I think we should have the right to end our life when we see fit.
I hate the saying "permanent solution to a temporary problem". The girl who was raped, her problem isn't temporary. She's gonna have to live with the trauma of the rape for the rest of her life.
The girl in debt and with boyfriend issues, that doesn't sound temporary either especially if she has no means at all to pay off the debt.
It's dismissive to say that someone's problems are only temporary. Sometimes that may well be the case but a lot of the time, it isn't.
You make a valid point, but my point is that my cousin is living with that trauma as opposed to dying over it. I think she regretted trying to kill herself shortly after she woke up in the Children's hospital and she was glad that she was still alive. She is pregnant now with her first baby, which is due later this month.
Her mother (my aunt, my mother's youngest sister) recently died from a recurrence of breast cancer. Although she very much wanted to live to see her granchild born, that was not possible. The cancer, which was different from the original breast cancer that she had gotten rid of, spread to her brain last Christmas and she was in horrible pain near the end. If my aunt has wanted a large dose of pain-killers to end her suffering, IMO that would have been a permanent solution to a permanent problem.
That's another thing I hate, how mental health is seen as less important than physical health. Just because someone's body isn't shutting down but their mind is, shouldn't they have the same rights?
As I said before, it just strikes me as really dismissive.
-
"The people of Britain do not want it". I suppose you had a referendum then, before guns were restricted for the first time. ::)
This country is a better place for it's firearms restrictions. I am in no position to say the same thing for America or Sweden. I don't know enough about those countries. Legalizing guns in Britain makes no sense at all. There is no point introducing another problem into our country. We already have enough problems without arming our citizens.
I have no idea if we held a referendum before restricting guns. If one was held now, it would be overwhelmingly against legalizing guns.
-
"The people of Britain do not want it". I suppose you had a referendum then, before guns were restricted for the first time. ::)
This country is a better place for it's firearms restrictions. I am in no position to say the same thing for America or Sweden. I don't know enough about those countries. Legalizing guns in Britain makes no sense at all. There is no point introducing another problem into our country. We already have enough problems without arming our citizens.
I have no idea if we held a referendum before restricting guns. If one was held now, it would be overwhelmingly against legalizing guns.
I was sarcastic. Of course it wasn't a referendum. The point is that most gun laws were introduced without ever asking the people about it. That was kind of why they were made.
Sweden's gun law sucks, but nothing compared to that of the UK. And criminals who want guns have no problems getting them here.
-
Agreed 100% with Bint and Butterflies. also can we move one of these discussions to a different thread at least ? :P
-
"The people of Britain do not want it". I suppose you had a referendum then, before guns were restricted for the first time. ::)
This country is a better place for it's firearms restrictions. I am in no position to say the same thing for America or Sweden. I don't know enough about those countries. Legalizing guns in Britain makes no sense at all. There is no point introducing another problem into our country. We already have enough problems without arming our citizens.
I have no idea if we held a referendum before restricting guns. If one was held now, it would be overwhelmingly against legalizing guns.
I was sarcastic. Of course it wasn't a referendum. The point is that most gun laws were introduced without ever asking the people about it. That was kind of why they were made.
Sweden's gun law sucks, but nothing compared to the that of the UK. And criminals who want guns have no problems getting them here.
Er, most laws IN GENERAL are introducdd without asking the people about it
-
"The people of Britain do not want it". I suppose you had a referendum then, before guns were restricted for the first time. ::)
This country is a better place for it's firearms restrictions. I am in no position to say the same thing for America or Sweden. I don't know enough about those countries. Legalizing guns in Britain makes no sense at all. There is no point introducing another problem into our country. We already have enough problems without arming our citizens.
I have no idea if we held a referendum before restricting guns. If one was held now, it would be overwhelmingly against legalizing guns.
I was sarcastic. Of course it wasn't a referendum. The point is that most gun laws were introduced without ever asking the people about it. That was kind of why they were made.
Sweden's gun law sucks, but nothing compared to the that of the UK. And criminals who want guns have no problems getting them here.
Er, most laws IN GENERAL are introducdd without asking the people about it
And you think that's the way it should be? The Swiss had a referendum a while ago, but they voted to keep their guns, because they're among the few Europeans that still aren't total cunts.
-
Honestly? Yes. I don't want to have to vote on every single law the govt wants to pass. I actually have other thigns I want to do with my life
If there was a lot of support for gun ownership in this country, people would be more vocal about it. I have yet to meet anyone irl who's openly wanted the gun laws repealed
-
Honestly? Yes. I don't want to have to vote on every single law the govt wants to pass. I actually have other thigns I want to do with my life
If there was a lot of support for gun ownership in this country, people would be more vocal about it. I have yet to meet anyone irl who's openly wanted the gun laws repealed
Because most Brits are cunts. You're even more cunts than Swedes are, and that says a lot.
-
"The people of Britain do not want it". I suppose you had a referendum then, before guns were restricted for the first time. ::)
This country is a better place for it's firearms restrictions. I am in no position to say the same thing for America or Sweden. I don't know enough about those countries. Legalizing guns in Britain makes no sense at all. There is no point introducing another problem into our country. We already have enough problems without arming our citizens.
I have no idea if we held a referendum before restricting guns. If one was held now, it would be overwhelmingly against legalizing guns.
I was sarcastic. Of course it wasn't a referendum. The point is that most gun laws were introduced without ever asking the people about it. That was kind of why they were made.
Sweden's gun law sucks, but nothing compared to the that of the UK. And criminals who want guns have no problems getting them here.
Er, most laws IN GENERAL are introducdd without asking the people about it
And you think that's the way it should be? The Swiss had a referendum a while ago, but they voted to keep their guns, because they're among the few Europeans that still aren't total cunts.
That's a good question. If we have a referendum about every decision, then I can see 2 major problems.
One is that you would be having so many referenda that the vast majority of people would quickly lose interest in voting, and these referenda would be dominated by those people who had a real interest in that one issue, rather than being a true representation of the wishes of the people.
Another is that, the majority of important decisions require a lot of research into the subject. It is unlikely that the majority of people in this country would have the time, and intelligence to do the necessary research into these issues, and instead will simply be guided by whatever tabloid newspaper they read. This would probably have the effect of replacing our shitebag politicians, with even bigger shitebag media moguls. The populist vote will win, regardless of whether it's the right decision or not. You will surely see complete shitebags like Rupert Murdoch gaining more power as they are in the best position to influence the minds of the masses through their media empires.
Of course, on the other hand, leaving the decision making up to our politicians has very severe drawbacks as well. Look at the Iraq war for instance. There will be many more examples of our politicians ignoring the wishes of the people, and then getting it completely wrong.
I would probably just choose the system we have at the moment, although I do know that it is hugely flawed.
-
The Swiss have several referendums every year, on all levels. If 200000 Swiss demand it, there must also be a referendum about the Swiss constitution.
That's what I call democracy. 8)
-
The Swiss have several referendums every year, on all levels. If 200000 Swiss demand it, there must also be a referendum about the Swiss constitution.
That's what I call democracy. 8)
I agree.
It also shows the drawbacks of true democracy though. At the time of holding the referendum on the banning of building new minarets, the majority of the country had been whipped into a frenzy of anti-muslim sentiment.
Sadly there does not appear to be a perfect solution. If there is, then it's far beyond my abilities to see it.
-
I don't see how we're cunts for not having something we don't want (ie guns for anyone and everyone)
Although if that does make us cunts, then I guess I'm a cunt :dunno:
-
Also this topic has been fucking DONE TO DEATH. can't we get back to what the thread was about? I thought that was interesting
-
The gun argument isn't that relevant in this thread. A gun would be the last thing i would use if i wanted to die anyway. I would look at other methods first, like an overdose perhaps. Anyway i believe that if you have the readies and are determined enough, you could by a gun to do it anyway - lawful or not.
The point is in deciding 'enough is enough' you are committing a crime! I think that is why people choose to go to that clinic. You may think, well does it matter? if i commit suicide i am violating the law and that has consequences. Anything deemed 'not natural causes' is automatically referred to H M Coroner. The coroner would conduct a post mortem, my family would have to wait before they could book the funeral, they would likely then have to attend an inquest....it's a big long fuck about!!
I am not entirely sure why a healthy person would want to do it anyway - but i agree that it should be their right - and they shouldn't have to break the law to do so.
If you use a legally held firearm in america to kill yourself - is that against the law? If so then you have the same problem :thumbup:
-
Suicide seems to be illegal in America, yes.
Actually one of the safest methods to kill yourself isn't by a gun but by putting explosives in your mouth. At least small calibre guns might fail their purpose, with you ending up as a vegetable.
Overdose is harder than you might think, if you don't, once again, go for the illegal stuff. Most drugs prescribed, unless you already have an almost deadly disease won't kill you nowadays. When each and every MD prescribed strong barbiturates, 30 pills were often enough.
-
The gun argument isn't that relevant in this thread. A gun would be the last thing i would use if i wanted to die anyway. I would look at other methods first, like an overdose perhaps. Anyway i believe that if you have the readies and are determined enough, you could by a gun to do it anyway - lawful or not.
The point is in deciding 'enough is enough' you are committing a crime! I think that is why people choose to go to that clinic. You may think, well does it matter? if i commit suicide i am violating the law and that has consequences. Anything deemed 'not natural causes' is automatically referred to H M Coroner. The coroner would conduct a post mortem, my family would have to wait before they could book the funeral, they would likely then have to attend an inquest....it's a big long fuck about!!
I am not entirely sure why a healthy person would want to do it anyway - but i agree that it should be their right - and they shouldn't have to break the law to do so.
If you use a legally held firearm in america to kill yourself - is that against the law? If so then you have the same problem :thumbup:
I'm just not sure. I have principles that pull me in both directions on this issue. Of course I believe in freedom over your own life and body, but at the same time I'm not sure that it should be made easier to kill yourself. Often people want to die, but things like fear, and difficulty stop them from actually doing it. Often these people can eventually find some degree of happiness in their life.
-
Suicide isn't illegal, attempting and failing is, and will end one in mental hospital not jail. For the old and terminal ill, do fully support euthanasia and believe those who want to die should be allowed to, however assistance from the medical industry can be problematic if legal because it makes killing a business.
-
I voted target practice for the army. :thumbup:
-
Hitler killed himself with a 7.65mm...PPK. :orly: Both school shooters in Finland killed themselves with 5.56mm short. Though with both those calibre suicide might fail.
-
Didn't Hitler also bite on a cyanide capsule at the same time though?
-
:indeed:
-
Or at least that's what they think. No one really knows.
-
Didn't Hitler also bite on a cyanide capsule at the same time though?
Biting into a cyanide capsule while shooting oneself would be a pretty impressive feat of multitasking! :multitask:
-
You bite and shoot within ½ second. They were made of glass and probably filled with hydrogen cyanide rather than potassium cyanide, so they worked within seconds.
-
You bite and shoot within ½ second. They were made of glass and probably filled with hydrogen cyanide rather than potassium cyanide, so they worked within seconds.
Biting glass, ouch. Not that it matters in that context, I suppose. :laugh:
-
Whilst it might not be 'illegal' now, it was once - and it carried the death penalty :lol: it is still a death that would require a police callout, and cause of death would
be determined by a post mortem, certain insurance companies won't pay out meaning you could be saddling relatives with your funeral costs as well as them having to attend an inquest. You also have to be very meticulous about not involving anyone in your plans for it is illegal to assist and carries a long prison sentence.
I know this is gonna sound harsh and i will probably get some stick for saying it - but i feel we spend a lot of money keeping people alive - young or old - and i would rather channel those resources to people who actually want to live - yes i mean young and old too. I find it frustrating to read about remarkable individuals who battle to stay alive, against all odds, fighting cancer and overcoming awful injuries while some people just don't want to live anymore.
-
This is one case where America is better than the UK. In America, if you want to die, you can buy a gun and shoot yourself. In Britain, you have to ask government permission before wiping your nose. :headbang:
Eh, the tube in the car connected to it's exhaust is a excellent choice if you can't get a gun.
I agree. I really recommend this as a highly effective yet painless suicide method.
-
Cyanide capsules looked like this, by the way: Cyanide container (http://www.usmbooks.com/ss_cyanide_container.html)
-
Cyanide capsules looked like this, by the way: Cyanide container (http://www.usmbooks.com/ss_cyanide_container.html)
:thumbup: I found those pics to be quite interesting, so they didn't swallow the glass they just had to break it? is that correct?
-
Cyanide capsules looked like this, by the way: Cyanide container (http://www.usmbooks.com/ss_cyanide_container.html)
:thumbup: I found those pics to be quite interesting, so they didn't swallow the glass they just had to break it? is that correct?
They crushed the capsule between the teeth. Death or at least unconsiousness would come within less than 10 seconds, death would be certain within a minute or two.
-
Cyanide capsules looked like this, by the way: Cyanide container (http://www.usmbooks.com/ss_cyanide_container.html)
:thumbup: I found those pics to be quite interesting, so they didn't swallow the glass they just had to break it? is that correct?
They crushed the capsule between the teeth. Death or at least unconsiousness would come within less than 10 seconds, death would be certain within a minute or two.
*shakes head* I couldn't do that, my teeth are not up to biting glass. *reaches for the Sensodyne* :laugh:
-
Whilst it might not be 'illegal' now, it was once - and it carried the death penalty :lol: it is still a death that would require a police callout, and cause of death would
be determined by a post mortem, certain insurance companies won't pay out meaning you could be saddling relatives with your funeral costs as well as them having to attend an inquest. You also have to be very meticulous about not involving anyone in your plans for it is illegal to assist and carries a long prison sentence.
I know this is gonna sound harsh and i will probably get some stick for saying it - but i feel we spend a lot of money keeping people alive - young or old - and i would rather channel those resources to people who actually want to live - yes i mean young and old too. I find it frustrating to read about remarkable individuals who battle to stay alive, against all odds, fighting cancer and overcoming awful injuries while some people just don't want to live anymore.
That's true about the insurance. My cousin's hospital stay following her suicide attempt was not covered by her health insurance even though she was a minor. So my aunt and uncle had to pay the entire cost themselves in monthly payments.
-
You bite and shoot within ½ second. They were made of glass and probably filled with hydrogen cyanide rather than potassium cyanide, so they worked within seconds.
Biting glass, ouch. Not that it matters in that context, I suppose. :laugh:
As soon as the CN- bonds with your hemoglobin and stops O2 from bonding you will cease caring about glass in your mouth. Cyanide is organic too, therefore it must be good right? :zoinks:
-
You bite and shoot within ½ second. They were made of glass and probably filled with hydrogen cyanide rather than potassium cyanide, so they worked within seconds.
Biting glass, ouch. Not that it matters in that context, I suppose. :laugh:
As soon as the CN- bonds with your hemoglobin and stops O2 from bonding you will cease caring about glass in your mouth. Cyanide is organic too, therefore it must be good right? :zoinks:
Cyanide is good for me? That's, like, so cool! :blonde:
-
You're organic and cyanide is organic too. Ergo: cyanide is good for you. :zoinks:
-
Suicide isn't illegal, attempting and failing is, and will end one in mental hospital not jail. For the old and terminal ill, do fully support euthanasia and believe those who want to die should be allowed to, however assistance from the medical industry can be problematic if legal because it makes killing a business.
Executioners in the states that still have the death penalty make killing a business.
-
Don't agree with the death penalty either but considering the number of executions per year averages about 50, it could be argued there would be a big difference in the two.
-
wow 50 a year, I didn't know it was that high
-
Thought it would be lower too since people sentenced to death often wait many years before it happens. Also didn't realize 3/4 of the states have the death penalty; thought that was lower too. Considering such, then fifty doesn't seem as high. Got that statistic from this site. http://www.antideathpenalty.org/statistics.html
-
The difference is that these people don't actively want to die. Could be argued that neither did their victims but surely if we act like the criminal, that just brings us down to their level?
Anyway, wiith places like Dignitas, you're just giving someone who desperately *does* want to die, a helping hand.
-
The US has hospice care for the terminal; palliative care is an acceptable middle ground.
-
but if someone desperately wants to die, any kind of "care" they receive is meaningless - it is FORCING them to endure suffering against their will
-
i can honestly say a 'hospice' is the last place i would want to die.
-
i can honestly say a 'hospice' is the last place i would want to die.
I agree, but I can't recall anyone saying "I think a hospice would be the most appropriate place to die".
The reality is...there is a point where people become so worn down, they don't care, they just want respite, anywhere.
-
i can honestly say a 'hospice' is the last place i would want to die.
My aunt got hospice care near the end of her life, but she got this care at home.
-
but if someone desperately wants to die, any kind of "care" they receive is meaningless - it is FORCING them to endure suffering against their will
The point of hospice is not to treat illness or prolong anything, but to relieve suffering; maybe it's different here, don't know.
-
My aunt got hospice care near the end of her life, but she got this care at home.
Seems most is in home if it's possible.
-
I don't want to die peacefully. When I'm ready to go, load me in a rocket, and auger me into the fucking moon.
-
Actually, there were less crimes in the UK (and in Sweden too) back when you could buy a gun as easily as in the US. Anti-gun propaganda seems to work like a lobotomy on people who believe in it.
Back in the days when there were less people?
-
Actually, there were less crimes in the UK (and in Sweden too) back when you could buy a gun as easily as in the US. Anti-gun propaganda seems to work like a lobotomy on people who believe in it.
Back in the days when there were less people?
Even if you take that into account, there were relatively few crimes. And 90% of people working full time back then had less to live on than a person having disability pension or welfare has today. Considering the poverty and great social gaps, there should have been much more violence, but there wasn't.
-
Actually, there were less crimes in the UK (and in Sweden too) back when you could buy a gun as easily as in the US. Anti-gun propaganda seems to work like a lobotomy on people who believe in it.
Back in the days when there were less people?
Even if you take that into account, there were relatively few crimes. And 90% of people working full time back then had less to live on than a person having disability pension or welfare has today. Considering the poverty and great social gaps, there should have been much more violence, but there wasn't.
There will have been unreported crime. Daughters of peasants raped by the landlord, and no one telling, fearing for their bread and such.
Statistics can't be compared just like that.
-
In ancient Rome, some people got a warning the day before they'd get a death-penalty.
Thus they would have the time to take their own life, and in that way, they would keep the family possessions within the family.
Were they sentenced to death, all their belongings would fall in the hands of the state.
-
I prefer America in 1850 or so. :viking:
-
Right to die when you want?
Guess so, but I think it is very important to verify it is really the wish of the person that wants to die, and that he or she has seriously thought up the alternatives. I guess I am close to Callaway in my opinion on this.
Here there is assisted suicide for people with physical suffering without hope of ending of that suffering. Two different doctors have to be convinced it is the wish of the person who wants to die, and not pressure from family, or fear of this person to be a burden to the family.
Don't think impulsive suicide wishes should be enough to get medical assistance for suicide.
But a deep long wish, can't see why not.
Would hate a job like that btw. Assisting people who really suffer is already hard on the people assisting them. Helping people who are not suffering at all, but just think it is enough, very hard job.
Having suicide attempts illegal makes no sense to me at all.
-
Having suicide attempts illegal makes no sense to me at all.
I think it makes sense because the suicidal are very likely to need mental health care and that's where they go.
-
Whilst it might not be 'illegal' now, it was once - and it carried the death penalty :lol: it is still a death that would require a police callout, and cause of death would
be determined by a post mortem, certain insurance companies won't pay out meaning you could be saddling relatives with your funeral costs as well as them having to attend an inquest. You also have to be very meticulous about not involving anyone in your plans for it is illegal to assist and carries a long prison sentence.
I know this is gonna sound harsh and i will probably get some stick for saying it - but i feel we spend a lot of money keeping people alive - young or old - and i would rather channel those resources to people who actually want to live - yes i mean young and old too. I find it frustrating to read about remarkable individuals who battle to stay alive, against all odds, fighting cancer and overcoming awful injuries while some people just don't want to live anymore.
That's true about the insurance. My cousin's hospital stay following her suicide attempt was not covered by her health insurance even though she was a minor. So my aunt and uncle had to pay the entire cost themselves in monthly payments.
That is awful. When I was in hospital for nearly four months, I didn't have to pay anything. Plus last year I was in hospital twice. If I had to pay for all that I would probably be broke for the rest of my life. Which probably wouldn't be very long :P
I voted for the first option, though I have nothing intelligent to say about it because it is all personal.
-
I prefer America in 1850 or so. :viking:
Were you here back then? My great-grandmother :prude: would have been a year-old baby.
-
I prefer America in 1850 or so. :viking:
Were you here back then? My great-grandmother :prude: would have been a year-old baby.
No, but you had a lot of guns already then, and the American government wasn't like it is today.
-
I'm glad I don't live in 1850
-
Depends. If you were really poor it'd been hell.
-
I prefer America in 1850 or so. :viking:
Were you here back then? My great-grandmother :prude: would have been a year-old baby.
No, but you had a lot of guns already then, and the American government wasn't like it is today.
Back then guns typically cost a couple of months wages.
-
I prefer America in 1850 or so. :viking:
Were you here back then? My great-grandmother :prude: would have been a year-old baby.
No, but you had a lot of guns already then, and the American government wasn't like it is today.
Back then guns typically cost a couple of months wages.
I know. But still. No giant government putting its nose into everything.