Euthanasia in New Zealand

[Gunny]

why is it "more appropriately called assisted dying".
what's appropriate about it?
Calling it assisted suicide and contract killing seems just as "appropriate" to me.



I'm Not sure why adding an extra illness to the list of those eligible for legal contract killing is "NO BIG DEAL".
killing people is NO BIG DEAL? really?
I always thought excuses for killing people, or even hurting people had to be a pretty big deal.
When did adding excuses for legally killing folks become no big deal exactly?

Semantics.

I hate to be consistent here, but shouldn't it be the individual's choice, regardless the label? That's from a legal point. You're making someone else's choice.

Ethically, I can honestly say I have conflicting opinions. Having watched a few close relatives die drawn-out, long suffering deaths with zero chance of survival, I can't honestly cannot deny someone that choice.

For myself, due to my religion, I can only state what my grandmother told me: "I don't know why the Good Lord has chosen this fate for me, I guess it's just another test and I have it to do."

[fj1200]

why is it "more appropriately called assisted dying".
what's appropriate about it?
Calling it assisted suicide and contract killing seems just as "appropriate" to me.



I'm Not sure why adding an extra illness to the list of those eligible for legal contract killing is "NO BIG DEAL".
killing people is NO BIG DEAL? really?
I always thought excuses for killing people, or even hurting people had to be a pretty big deal.
When did adding excuses for legally killing folks become no big deal exactly?

I didn't realize the point of this thread was to debate one's views on euthanasia. That's a different discussion than the one raised in the OP I think.

But you're "contract killing" line is off the mark as it relates here because that's not how it works.

[Gunny]

I didn't realize the point of this thread was to debate one's views on euthanasia. That's a different discussion than the one raised in the OP I think.

But you're "contract killing" line is off the mark as it relates here because that's not how it works.

?

What then?

[fj1200]

?

What then?

This was the question asked.

Ths question is will covid patients be euthanized?

Which I took to mean are they just going to start with the systematic killing of covid patients? /hyberbole

[Gunny]

This was the question asked.






Which I took to mean are they just going to start with the systematic killing of covid patients? /hyberbole

Ah. My response is to the subject line. I see your point.

[revelarts]

Canda's contribution




I'm sure it's "no big deal"


I mean Stalin Did it so it must be A-OK to kill the political disid..Cough- I Mean the "Mentally Ill"

Actually the Germans started their 'final solution' this way, the Mentally ill and the handicapped were the 1st to go.
Can't have any 'weak minded' clouding up the Aryan gene pool & draining resources from the State.
But I'm sure this is TOTALLY different.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Canda's contribution




I'm sure it's "no big deal"


I mean Stalin Did it so it must be A-OK to kill the political disid..Cough- I Mean the "Mentally Ill"

Actually the Germans started their 'final solution' this way, the Mentally ill and the handicapped were the 1st to go.
Can't have any 'weak minded' clouding up the Aryan gene pool & draining resources from the State.
But I'm sure this is TOTALLY different.

What when the --mentally ill-- will be determined by a certain political party. As we now already see the dems far, far ahead of the game on that--do we not?
Certainly be easy to see how that could be used- "to eliminate certain opposition", would it not.???
I mean, Hitler caught on to that and put it to fantastic use to gain dominate power and then caused the deaths of millions..
Darest one say, but not here, never here and not our precious dems!-
As if they are the gods that they so very cleverly pretend to be be...
God forbid, that one even dare to consider questioning those paragons of virtues and infinite kindness... eh?--Tyr

[fj1200]

Ths question is will covid patients be euthanized?

I wonder if any were.

[jimnyc]

I thought euthanasia was basically "not a choice" like suicide by decision? Here's what I found out about the differences, if it applies here at all or not. Because honestly, after I read the article it did sound like there was some form of option to use euthanasia by the doctors choice and not the patients choice. But that's likely me basing that on what I assumed euthanasia was to be defined as. I thought voluntarily doing so was simply suicide, but I see I was incorrect.

I don't like any sounds of "euthanasia" and adding ANY incentive for a doctor is insanity.... who knows what people are capable of for a measly $1k

On the other hand, if someone has a terminal illness, and is found to be of sound mind, and would rather die at a certain time than suffer and die later... then I would never judge such a person.

---

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Euthanasia may be voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted with consent. Voluntary euthanasia is currently legal in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and New Zealand. It is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont.

Non-voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent due to their current health condition. In this situation, the decision is made by another appropriate person, on behalf of the individual, based on their quality of life.

Involuntary: When euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. This is called murder, as it’s often against the person’s will.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...sisted-suicide

[Gunny]

I thought euthanasia was basically "not a choice" like suicide by decision? Here's what I found out about the differences, if it applies here at all or not. Because honestly, after I read the article it did sound like there was some form of option to use euthanasia by the doctors choice and not the patients choice. But that's likely me basing that on what I assumed euthanasia was to be defined as. I thought voluntarily doing so was simply suicide, but I see I was incorrect.

I don't like any sounds of "euthanasia" and adding ANY incentive for a doctor is insanity.... who knows what people are capable of for a measly $1k

On the other hand, if someone has a terminal illness, and is found to be of sound mind, and would rather die at a certain time than suffer and die later... then I would never judge such a person.

---

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Euthanasia may be voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted with consent. Voluntary euthanasia is currently legal in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and New Zealand. It is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont.

Non-voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent due to their current health condition. In this situation, the decision is made by another appropriate person, on behalf of the individual, based on their quality of life.

Involuntary: When euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. This is called murder, as it’s often against the person’s will.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...sisted-suicide

I love the we we can wordsmith killing someone into sounding a lot cleaner than what it is.

That word and the left's slippery slope give me an uneasy feeling.

[jimnyc]

I love the we we can wordsmith killing someone into sounding a lot cleaner than what it is.

That word and the left's slippery slope give me an uneasy feeling.

"die with dignity" - "end of life care" and all kinds of sweet names. And even a "prescription" is given to do the deed.

Then add in monetary incentive!

But yeah, euthanasia and suicide aren't very clean. Then again I have seen people suffer the worst suffering prior to death. Like my Aunt in the early 80's who died of bone cancer, and they even screwed a square cage into her skull for various support and what not. Horrible. And she was in pain for a long long time before she finally passed away. I would never mention, offer, solicit or do anything around that subject with such a person - but if they wanted to end their own suffering, knowing they will be dead quite soon anyway, then I would never judge them.

But imagine if you found out that a doctor had convinced granny to want to end her life - because he/she thought they may ultimately die from covid?

These doctors, here or there, better have 5,000% irrefutable proof of impending death.

[fj1200]

I thought euthanasia was basically "not a choice" like suicide by decision? Here's what I found out about the differences, if it applies here at all or not. Because honestly, after I read the article it did sound like there was some form of option to use euthanasia by the doctors choice and not the patients choice. But that's likely me basing that on what I assumed euthanasia was to be defined as. I thought voluntarily doing so was simply suicide, but I see I was incorrect.

I don't like any sounds of "euthanasia" and adding ANY incentive for a doctor is insanity.... who knows what people are capable of for a measly $1k

On the other hand, if someone has a terminal illness, and is found to be of sound mind, and would rather die at a certain time than suffer and die later... then I would never judge such a person.

---

I think that is the point of the laws surrounding the issue. Hopefully to create a framework that the decision can be made in to avoid abuse. I don't think the doctors are the ones to worry about, I think it's the relatives. Just as some might want mom or dad to kick the bucket some demand that Medicare pay for excess keep-mom-alive procedures.

[Gunny]

"die with dignity" - "end of life care" and all kinds of sweet names. And even a "prescription" is given to do the deed.

Then add in monetary incentive!

But yeah, euthanasia and suicide aren't very clean. Then again I have seen people suffer the worst suffering prior to death. Like my Aunt in the early 80's who died of bone cancer, and they even screwed a square cage into her skull for various support and what not. Horrible. And she was in pain for a long long time before she finally passed away. I would never mention, offer, solicit or do anything around that subject with such a person - but if they wanted to end their own suffering, knowing they will be dead quite soon anyway, then I would never judge them.

But imagine if you found out that a doctor had convinced granny to want to end her life - because he/she thought they may ultimately die from covid?

These doctors, here or there, better have 5,000% irrefutable proof of impending death.

I think that is the point of the laws surrounding the issue. Hopefully to create a framework that the decision can be made in to avoid abuse. I don't think the doctors are the ones to worry about, I think it's the relatives. Just as some might want mom or dad to kick the bucket some demand that Medicare pay for excess keep-mom-alive procedures.

Despite the "why's and wherefor's", it isn't the individual circumstances that concerns me. Despite any altruistic reasoning, I don't trust a society that has proven time and again it can't handle and/or will dodge responsible behavior to get comfortable with the idea that it is okay to euthanize.

When put together with the left's proven determination to ride a slippery slope into the pits of Hell on any and all issues of morality, I don't think wondering "What's next?" is out of line. The indigent? From the sounds of the current wokesters and left, white people and conservatives would certainly be eligible.

[SassyLady]

If I remember it only takes 2 physicians to determine it's a terminal illness.

My SIL had terminal cancer in 2020. Couple months to live. Get your affairs in order. Started talking fenbendazole. Six months later she has no cancer. Still cancer free. What if she had been classified as eligible? She probably would have opted for it if it were legal here. No doctors told her to try fenbendazole. I have several friends using it now and no sign of cancer.

The medical community doesn't want to people to be cured. Would probably close down an extremely profitable income stream for thousands of organizations who profit off cancer.

Now, there will be euthansia businesses everywhere is legal.

[fj1200]

Despite the "why's and wherefor's", it isn't the individual circumstances that concerns me. Despite any altruistic reasoning, I don't trust a society that has proven time and again it can't handle and/or will dodge responsible behavior to get comfortable with the idea that it is okay to euthanize.

When put together with the left's proven determination to ride a slippery slope into the pits of Hell on any and all issues of morality, I don't think wondering "What's next?" is out of line. The indigent? From the sounds of the current wokesters and left, white people and conservatives would certainly be eligible.

I'm not worried about that. Scare tactics IMO.