physician-assisted suicide vs Faith in Jesus

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Top court returns to physician-assisted suicide

Bush administration argues against Oregon law

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9595961/

Church ties could shed light on Miers

[eisanbt]

Seperation of church and state, its in the constitution is it not? Not to america bash here but if you guys become anymore of an oliarchy I'm going to lose all faith that you can turn it around....

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Seperation of church and state, its in the constitution is it not? Not to america bash here but if you guys become anymore of an oliarchy I'm going to lose all faith that you can turn it around....

I quite agree !

 

It is quite a shame that the majority of American citizens sit on their hands and allow a minority take control of the Government.

Although, I have a feeling the time is ripe for a turn-around.

[TheJenn88]

While the western ideologies we have today are mainly prompted from the more-or-less ancient times of Catholocism/Christianity, our aim today is for separation of church and state.

 

I quite agree with this because as a society as diverse as the ones we live in, it only makes sense to be able to please as many people as possible. Par example, allowing gay marriage/unity doesn't "hurt" anyone who doesn't support it, so it should be allowed.

 

However, involuntary, or voluntary active euthanasia will affect more than just the person who dies, so it's a bit stickier to decide on. But you were brought into this world by choice, why can't you choose to die?

(And to leave this closed off for interpretation, I don't mean a healthy 30 year old with a good life should just up and say, "damn, this is bad, and it happened. i'm going to ask a doc to kill me." Now THAT'S bullshit.)

[snafu]

Seperation of church and state, its in the constitution is it not? Not to america bash here but if you guys become anymore of an oliarchy I'm going to lose all faith that you can turn it around....

 

Show me where it say's seperation of church and State!

It dosn't.

 

What you are referring to is the State should not interfere with the Church.

 

Same old bullsthit!!

Get it right would you.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

While the western ideologies we have today are mainly prompted from the more-or-less ancient times of Catholocism/Christianity, our aim today is for separation of church and state.

 

I quite agree with this because as a society as diverse as the ones we live in, it only makes sense to be able to please as many people as possible. Par example, allowing gay marriage/unity doesn't "hurt" anyone who doesn't support it, so it should be allowed.

 

However, involuntary, or voluntary active euthanasia will affect more than just the person who dies, so it's a bit stickier to decide on. But you were brought into this world by choice, why can't you choose to die?

(And to leave this closed off for interpretation, I don't mean a healthy 30 year old with a good life should just up and say, "damn, this is bad, and it happened. i'm going to ask a doc to kill me." Now THAT'S bullshit.)

I disagree. For the governement to tell a person that he/she can't kill himself violates that person's right to self-determination even if everyone on planet earth disagrees with their decision(sp???)

 

That is why I believe that everyone has the right to polute their own bodies with as many drugs and chemicals as they want to. It's their life and their right to self-determination. For the government to say you can't smoke dope, drop acid or commit suicide, they might as well say you are property of the government! Hell, they ought to quit being hypocritical about it and change the wording of the drug laws from "posession of controlled substance" to "destruction of government property".

[TheJenn88]

I disagree. For the governement to tell a person that he/she can't kill himself violates that person's right to self-determination even if everyone on planet earth disagrees with their decision(sp???)

 

 

I wasn't saying suicide on account of just being depressed shouold be illegal. In fact, I'd never say that. I was merely saying it's dumb.

 

In fact, I said people are quite in their own right to choose their ending.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I wasn't saying suicide on account of just being depressed shouold be illegal. In fact, I'd never say that. I was merely saying it's dumb.

 

In fact, I said people are quite in their own right to choose their ending.

Sorry, Jenn... I just reread your post! hits palm on forehead ... I misunderstood... Change that to "I agree".

[smutt butt]

if you wanna kill yourself go ahead, i don't give a shit, but if you ask a doctor to help you doesn't that make it murder?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Folks, maybe a better understanding of the Oregon physician-assisted suicide Law is in order so we might discuss this topic in a more clear manner?

 

http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml

Rules and Statutes

http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml

FAQs about Physician-Assisted Suicide

 

In 1997, Oregon enacted the first and, so far, only physician-assisted suicide law in the United States.

This law (known as the Death with Dignity Act) requires the Oregon Department of Human Services to collect and analyze data on who participates in the Act and to issue an annual report. These data are important to parties on both sides of the issue. Our position is a neutral one, and we offer no subjective opinions about these questions.

 

.

 

. FAQs about Physician-Assisted Suicide

 

In 1997, Oregon enacted the first and, so far, only physician-assisted suicide law in the United States. This law (known as the Death with Dignity Act) requires the Oregon Department of Human Services to collect and analyze data on who participates in the Act and to issue an annual report. These data are important to parties on both sides of the issue. Our position is a neutral one, and we offer no subjective opinions about these questions. We routinely receive inquiries about the Act. Here are some answers to commonly asked questions.

 

On this Page:

 

Please browse this list or download (pdf) for printing

• 
  [ ]

What is Oregon's Death with Dignity Act?
[ ]Who can request physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]Can someone who doesn't live in Oregon participate in physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]How does a patient demonstrate residency?
[ ]How long does someone have to be a resident of Oregon to participate in physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]Can a non-resident move to Oregon in order to participate in physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]Who can give a patient a prescription for physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]If a patient's doctor does not participate in physician-assisted suicide, how can s/he get a prescription?
[ ]If a patient's primary care doctor is located in another state, can that doctor write a prescription for the patient?
[ ]How does a patient get a prescription from a participating physician?
[ ]What kind of prescription will a patient receive?
[ ]What will happen if a physician doesn't follow the prescribing or reporting requirements of the Act?
[ ]Must a physician be present at the time the medications are taken?
[ ]Can a patient rescind a request for physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]How much does physician-assisted suicide cost?
[ ]Will insurance cover the cost of physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]Can a patient's family members request physician-assisted suicide on behalf of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient is comatose)?
[ ]Are euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide the same thing?
[ ]What information is available on Oregon's Death with Dignity website?
[ ]What is the Department of Human Services' opinion of physician-assisted suicide? Does it encourage people to hasten their deaths? Should this law have been passed? What are the pros and cons of physician-assisted suicide?
[ ]What was the issue in the federal lawsuit against Oregon's Death with Dignity law?
[ ]Where can I find a copy of the statutes and administrative rules governing the Death with Dignity Act?
[ ]Where can I find the forms used for Death with Dignity?

Q: What is Oregon's Death with Dignity Act?

 

A: The Death with Dignity Act permits physicians to write prescriptions for a lethal dosage of medication to people with a terminal illness. This procedure is also known as physician-assisted suicide.

 

 

The Death with Dignity Act was a citizens' initiative passed twice by Oregon voters. The first time was in a general election in November 1994 when it passed by a margin of 51% to 49%. An injunction delayed implementation of the Act until it was lifted on October 27, 1997. In November 1997, a measure was placed on the general election ballot to repeal the Death with Dignity Act. Voters chose to retain the Act by a margin of 60% to 40%.

 

 

There is no state "program" for Death with Dignity/physician-assisted suicide. People interested in participating do not "make application" to the State of Oregon or the Department of Human Services. It is up to qualified patients and licensed physicians to implement the Act on an individual basis. The Act requires the Department of Human Services to collect data on patients who participate each year in order to determine compliance with the terms of the Act and to issue an annual report.

 

Q: Who can request physician-assisted suicide?

 

A: The law states that, in order to participate, a patient must be:

1) 18 years of age or older,

2) a resident of Oregon,

3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and

4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months.

It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met.

 

Q: Can someone who doesn't live in Oregon participate in physician-assisted suicide?

 

A: No. Only patients who establish that they are residents of Oregon can participate if they meet certain criteria.

 

[snafu]

I also agree that we should have the right to die if we want to.

I think it would be next to torture to make someone live with pain or the reality that your dieing slowly.

It's a very personal decision to live or die. Nobody but YOU should have that decision.

 

On the other hand, cases such as Terri Schivo there were no provable evedence that she wnated to die. Therfore she should have been able to live. That was a crime against humanity.

 

I think drug abuse would probably incress at first if it were totally legal. But as more people die off, become incapacitated or just go nuts and lose it drug abuse will decline. I think this is the only way to win the

[papabryant]

Should the Supreme Court base their Judgement of the merits of any Laws on the basis of "What would Jesus Do" ?

 

A few questions no one seems to be asking:

 

Why is it assumed Miers cannot separate legal decisions from religious ones simply because she is a Christian?

 

Why is it assumed all such legal decisions should be separated, especially if religion is part of the social fabric in which laws are passed and religious people are subject to those laws?

 

Does religious faith suddenly revoke the rights of a citizen to express their thoughts and beliefs on any subject, or to follow the dictates of their conscience, up to and including working through legal means to see them to fruition?

[TheJenn88]

On the other hand, cases such as Terri Schivo there were no provable evedence that she wnated to die. Therfore she should have been able to live. That was a crime against humanity.

 

I fully understand the crime of deciding the end of another's life, I do, but I think what they did was even more cruel. For god's sake, they didn't even proactively kill her, they just let her die. I'm against that. They should've done something to just end it quickly.

 

In Schaivo's case, I'm aware that she couldn't consent to passive euthanasia, but I don't think she should have lived. Someone in her state, sadly to say, isn't of real use to anyone except a visual reality to those that care about her. It is just as cruel to kill her, than to keep her "alive" like she was. I actually believe the latter is more cruel. No one should ever have to live like that. I hope that if I ever end up like her, I hope someone will end it for me quickly.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

A few questions no one seems to be asking:

 

Why is it assumed Miers cannot separate legal decisions from religious ones simply because she is a Christian?

 

Why is it assumed all such legal decisions should be separated, especially if religion is part of the social fabric in which laws are passed and religious people are subject to those laws?

 

Does religious faith suddenly revoke the rights of a citizen to express their thoughts and beliefs on any subject, or to follow the dictates of their conscience, up to and including working through legal means to see them to fruition?

Hey Papa! I agree 100% with this post... However I would like to add my own little spin... What if she was a fundamentalist muslim? Would we be getting all the same crap? (from me maybe, but what about the fucking fruit-cake liberals?) Hell no! You'd be hearing shit like "It's about time" and "Considering her religion is bigotted and racsist" and all of that shit!

[papabryant]

Hey Papa! I agree 100% with this post... However I would like to add my own little spin... What if she was a fundamentalist muslim? Would we be getting all the same crap? (from me maybe, but what about the fucking fruit-cake liberals?) Hell no! You'd be hearing shit like "It's about time" and "Considering her religion is bigotted and racsist" and all of that shit!

 

I'm afraid you're right MRIH.

 

Nothing in a fundamentalist Muslim's religious beliefs would preclude her from analysing the law separate from her beliefs, but looking to her beliefs would and should not be completely prohibited.

 

Unfortunately, the ultra libs would have no problem allowing her to do what WOULD be wrong in actively pushing Sharia law interpretation on the Constitution. They believe minority status equates to both oppression and forced reparations, in a case like this reparations mean forcing minority opinion on the majority.

 

It is not limited to Muslims though, and I really don't think we have much to worry from the majority of Muslims on this regard. Its the secularists that not only push this kind of thought, but most often benefit from it being implimented.