[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355389]Euthanasia isn't forbidden because the oh so holy god, but because it is assumed that a person in such a state can't make a rational decision on wheter they want to live or not. And unless the laws are changed, they are upheld the way they are, so saying OMG THIS MAN WANTED TO GIF HIM HIS WILL FUCKING STATE!!!! is fucking retarded and goes against everything most modern societies stand for. I am not judging euthanasia, but your retarded to think that the judgement or denial is wrong.[/QUOTE]
forcing people to live through intense pain is what creepy serial killers do
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355445]Yeah you have no argument but to try and insult me in a way that doesn't even make any sense at all, good for you.
If you want change, you need to bring it yourself, but considering that democracy is the system used, you might find that some people don't agree with you. FUCK THE SYSTEM!!!![/QUOTE]
it's ok if someone disagree's with me, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI"]but you're being a psychotic prick about it[/URL], I wasn't being 100% serious in saying "Fuck the system", but, fuck the system still.
I'm saddened, but I'm glad the poor man finally got what he wanted.
[QUOTE=J!NX;37355470]it's ok if someone disagree's with me, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI"]but you're being a psychotic prick about it[/URL], I wasn't being 100% serious in saying "Fuck the system", but, fuck the system still.[/QUOTE]
You are the one trying to insult me here, and I think you are confusing psychotic with "not sharing my perfect opinion". Also this is what we call backpedaling.
I bet he was injected with it, or had it given to him intentionally, or maybe it's just bullshit to begin with and one of his family members killed him like he wanted
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355507]You are the one trying to insult me here, and I think you are confusing psychotic with "not sharing my perfect opinion". Also this is what we call backpedaling.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355261]Yeah seriously how fucked up is this!!!!
I have a headache, it's so bad please kill me I''ll sign any release form w/e.[/QUOTE]
And comparing this mans suffering to a headache is not being a psychotic prick? You're using silly ass arguments against "fuck the system" when we already established the system is the issue here.
So, yeah you have no argument but to try and insult me in a way that doesn't even make any sense at all, good for you.
"I have a headache, it's so bad please kill me I''ll sign any release form w/e." "Not saying euthanasia is wrong" = backpedaling.
[QUOTE=Leader of Me;37355454]May he RIP in peace.[/QUOTE]May he rest in peace in peace.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;37355467]forcing people to live through intense pain is what creepy serial killers do[/QUOTE]
Again: I am not saying euthanasia is wrong, I am just saying that upholding the law is necessary, obviously the judges denied his request. He had a chance to get it, wheter that judgement was right or not is again not for me to say.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355389]Euthanasia isn't forbidden because the oh so holy god, but because it is assumed that a person in such a state can't make a rational decision on wheter they want to live or not. And unless the laws are changed, they are upheld the way they are, so saying OMG THIS MAN WANTED TO GIF HIM HIS WILL FUCKING STATE!!!! is fucking retarded and goes against everything most modern societies stand for. I am not judging euthanasia, but your retarded to think that the judgement or denial is wrong.[/QUOTE]
You've got fucking psychosis mate. Get it checked. Then you can come back, but only after you see a shrink.
[QUOTE=J!NX;37355518]And comparing this mans suffering to a headache is not being a psychotic prick
So, yeah you have no argument but to try and insult me in a way that doesn't even make any sense at all, good for you.[/QUOTE]
I was pointing out that euthanasia is denied because someone normally interested in it is considered to be in a state of pain/w/e that clouds their rational thinking.
[QUOTE=megafat;37355410]I'm pretty sure letting this man die would be more humane than letting him suffer.
How fucking stupid is it that we allow a suffering animal to be put to sleep, but as soon as it comes to a person, it's "Oh, we have to think about the ethical side of this."
Right now, we are giving pets better treatment with this issue than people.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't represent any of the complexity of the issue, all of which is why it isn't allowed yet.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355389]Euthanasia isn't forbidden because the oh so holy god, but because it is assumed that a person in such a state can't make a rational decision on wheter they want to live or not. And unless the laws are changed, they are upheld the way they are, so saying OMG THIS MAN WANTED TO GIF HIM HIS WILL FUCKING STATE!!!! is fucking retarded and goes against everything most modern societies stand for. I am not judging euthanasia, but your retarded to think that the judgement or denial is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Personally I think euthanasia should only practiced on patients with a terminal illness, and I'm pretty sure most people with those illnesses can still think rationally.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;37355529]You've got fucking psychosis mate. Get it checked. Then you can come back, but only after you see a shrink.[/QUOTE]
Why? Because I don't think that laws shouldn't be followed and everyone should just do however they please? Wheter or not this man should have received his Euthanasia, a judge ruled that he doesn't and did therefore keep to the rules the local society has agreed on, if you want them changed you are free and able to do so.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355535]I was pointing out that euthanasia is denied because someone normally interested in it is considered to be in a state of pain/w/e that clouds their rational thinking.[/QUOTE]
What does rational thinking have to do with it? [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9480227/Tony-Nicklinson-breaks-down-as-High-Court-rejects-his-right-to-die-plea.html"]and if you've seen his video[/URL], you'd know he's extremely rational and intelligent. He's in extreme pain, don't you think that's enough? if that's not enough for the state, then like I've said, it [B]is[/B] the systems fault, the system basically said "You must suffer!"
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355535]I was pointing out that euthanasia is denied because someone normally interested in it is considered to be in a state of pain/w/e that clouds their rational thinking.[/QUOTE]But if they're in non-stop pain that 'clouds' their judgement, wouldn't that mean that the person's view of the world has permanently changed instead? In other words, if your opinion is 'clouded' permanently, wouldn't that be simply considered a changed opinion?
[QUOTE=Bert the Turtle;37355543]Personally I think euthanasia should only practiced on patients with a terminal illness, and I'm pretty sure most people with those illnesses can still think rationally.[/QUOTE]
I agree that this often is the case and certainly could be proven, sadly adapting a system that properly takes such things into the process is something pretty much all the governments on this earth aren't very good at apparently.
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37355540]That doesn't represent any of the complexity of the issue, all of which is why it isn't allowed yet.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
I don't think people realise how difficult it is to recognise the difference between a legitimate cause to die, or someone who really just needs help.
Even that is only scratching the surface of the complexity involved with this issue.
doesn't this moron realize that "Fuck the system" is basically equal to "I hate the current rules and wish they were changed appropriately according to a more ethical way"?
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37355555]But if they're in non-stop pain that 'clouds' their judgement, wouldn't that mean that the person's view of the world has permanently changed instead? In other words, if your opinion is 'clouded' permanently, wouldn't that be simply considered a changed opinion?[/QUOTE]
This is of course a fair point, the current situation (apparently) assumes that after the pain has been relieved, which is currently assumed to happen sooner or later I guess, the person will regain a clear mind and prefer to be able to live on. Again, I am not saying this is the ultimate truth, I for one would like every case to be treated on it's own and carefully considered, but right now that isn't the case.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;37355600]doesn't this moron realize that "Fuck the system" is basically equal to "I hate the current rules and wish they were changed appropriately according to a more ethical way"?[/QUOTE]
Fuck the system means you want the system gone, at least that's what it always meant in the past.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355605]This is of course a fair point, the current situation (apparently) assumes that after the pain has been relieved, which is currently assumed to happen sooner or later I guess, the person will regain a clear mind and prefer to be able to live on. Again, I am not saying this is the ultimate truth, I for one would like every case to be treated on it's own and carefully considered, but right now that isn't the case.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
Fuck the system means you want the system gone, at least that's what it always meant in the past.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't regarding anarchy, that wouldn't even make any sense, just because someone swore at the system a little doesn't mean "HEY ANARCHY"
you've been taking every post in this thread totally literally. if you thought I was talking about that, it's clear you're insane. Plus, posts against you are getting insane amounts of agrees and you insane amounts of boxes.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355261]Yeah seriously how fucked up is this!!!!
I have a headache, it's so bad please kill me I''ll sign any release form w/e.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately a box is all I can give...
[QUOTE=NoDachi;37355565]Pretty much.
I don't think people realise how difficult it is to recognise the difference between a legitimate cause to die, or someone who really just needs help.
Even that is only scratching the surface of the complexity involved with this issue.[/QUOTE]
Yes, literally not a single person is complaining that people can't go into a SuicideBooth™ and waste yourself. The reason SEKCobra is addled in the brain for real is because this is an extraordinary case - Not only was this man in an irreparably disabled situation where he was constantly in physical pain (he could still feel itching and it would sometimes take a quarter of an hour for someone to deal with it) and mental anguish connected with being a fucking immobile head for your next (projected) 20 years of your life, but he was also in a clear state of mind, having gone through legal battles for over two years regarding his own right to die. In this case, he couldn't just have "the law changed" despite complete and utter evidence that he was not only of sound mind but that his condition was never going to recuperate, so why the fuck was he denied? Oh, maybe because, as the post SEKCobra first quoted said, the system is being sedentary and backwards and not magically "working" as he says.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
BUT BUT THE LAW SAYS:
In a perfect world, no one would die unexpectedly, and everyone would chose their way of ending their living self.
[QUOTE=lotusking;37355273]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;37355270]He starved himself to death.[/QUOTE]
[quote]His family said he died at home at 10:00 BST after contracting pneumonia.[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
[quote]His family [B]said[/B][/quote]
Because they obviously want to face charges for neglect and such.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;37355649]Yes, literally not a single person is complaining that people can't go into a SuicideBooth™ and waste yourself. The reason SEKCobra is addled in the brain for real is because this is an extraordinary case - Not only was this man in an irreparably disabled situation where he was constantly in physical pain (he could still feel itching and it would sometimes take a quarter of an hour for someone to deal with it) and mental anguish connected with being a fucking immobile head for your next (projected) 20 years of your life, but he was also in a clear state of mind, having gone through legal battles for over two years regarding his own right to die. In this case, he couldn't just have "the law changed" despite complete and utter evidence that he was not only of sound mind but that his condition was never going to recuperate, so why the fuck was he denied? Oh, maybe because, as the post SEKCobra first quoted said, the system is being sedentary and backwards and not magically "working" as he says.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
BUT BUT THE LAW SAYS:[/QUOTE]
Oh a man couldn't get the law changed by a court? Wow that is fucked up why can't a judge just change the laws? He should prosecute and be jury as well!
You are missing the point that special circumstances don't change fundamental laws like "no killing, ever!", but only a complete revisit of the issue changes it. I couldn't give less of a fuck about how bad this guy's situation was, and I have no doubt that he could have been absolutely right about requesting Euthanasia, however I think it is absolutely correct to deny it if the legal system agreed that there will be "no legal killing, ever, no matter what circumstances." What should happen is an addition of ", except euthanasia when it's like really sure and really necessary and stuff".
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
Also, maybe he was denied because his death was imminent, considering that thousands of others get denied as well, it wouldn't be fair (and that's all courts are about) to let him die a little bit easier, disregarding laws, but letting others suffer to follow the law. And it definitely isn't wrong to follow the law, it's upon all of us to change it. Sure there are serious flaws in current law making and changing systems that can make it near impossible to do so, but that's not part of the core issue I was talking about.
so, Cobra, as I understand your argument, you're essentially saying that it would be totally contradictory for a society that focuses on justice and order to willingly break their own laws to kill someone who is not at fault. am I correct?
[QUOTE=Cone;37355815]so, Cobra, as I understand your argument, you're essentially saying that it would be totally contradictory for a society that focuses on justice and order to willingly break their own laws to kill someone who is not at fault. am I correct?[/QUOTE]
Wait I thought he was talking about merry-go-rounds
[QUOTE=Cone;37355815]so, Cobra, as I understand your argument, you're essentially saying that it would be totally contradictory for a society that focuses on justice and order to willingly break their own laws to kill someone who is not at fault. am I correct?[/QUOTE]
I am saying that it would be wrong to kill someone because of his (possibly) temporary impulse that he wants to die. I think that regulations should be put in place to attempt at giving everyone as much freedom towards choosing death as possible, while not compromising the attempt to protect their life in their interest while they might (temporarily) disagree with it. I am not saying this specific case should or should not have ended in Euthanasia, I was purely trying to respond to the "Fuck the system, legalize euthanasia!" By making an extreme example of what a simple "Yo lets allow dat shizzle" could end up in, anyone being able to choose death over a little headache or other (less ridiculous) cases. And as long as we can't decide for a line, at which it is ok, for as long no one should be allowed to, no matter how cruel that might seem. But if we allow this man to die, completely against current laws, it would imply that the guy with the headache has the same right to die over it.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37356234]I am saying that it would be wrong to kill someone because of his (possibly) temporary impulse that he wants to die.[/QUOTE]
which totally isn't the case
so what are you exactly doing
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37355535]I was pointing out that euthanasia is denied because someone normally interested in it is considered to be in a state of pain/w/e that clouds their rational thinking.[/QUOTE]
But the doctors would first check the person's mental and physical condition and then would either agree or disagree whether euthanasia is appropriate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
