Re: The Nazi mind-set... weeeell, not exactly Nazism...

[Guest guest]

This is going to be short since this doesn't directly relate to

dwarfism, but I can't resist to bite the bait. Then I'll shut up.

Being devil's advocate, doctor assisted suicide is not as horrible as

it claims the practice to be -- as having the ability to " kill " whoever

they deem unworthy of life. It's a lot more complicated than that and

those who protest the " right to die " usually complain of the moral pain

versus the physical and say it's depricating of the human standard.

Well, I don't know if anyone has read the papers, but Oregon came up

with that law for patients who are terminally-ill and have less than 6

months to live. The first woman I believe who chose to die that way was

practically on her death bed and didn't want to die in a slow and

agonizing manner in the hospital, she wanted to die with dignity with

little pain as possible with her family around there to support her.

The procedure is actually somewhat long, despite arguments against it

and so far, only VERY few have been done so far legally in Oregon. I'd

take it if that was the case for myself. And the government/church is

going to slap me with a felong saying, " that's illegal " after I pass

on.

Being a native Oregonian myself, Oregon is a pretty liberal culture and

most of the people there are a lot more open about religion and moral

standards than elsewhere. Does that mean we're monsters? No. Does it

mean we devalue life? No. Do we believe everyone has their own entitled

right over their bodies and what they believe in? Yes.

How is this different when we have to put to sleep our beloved pets at

the vet? They are as precious as any family member and it's acceptable

in society to " put them down? " What's the difference? I would be

devastated if I had to do that one day (I have a cat who I absolutely

adore)... but if I had a choice, I would want what's best for her,

right?

HOWEVER, don't get me wrong -- " the right to die " is indeed a concern

if this practice is used on patients who have may have a condition or

disability but who may still live a fruitful and long life. This is a

somewhat similar to the issue of genetic-screening but the... general

purpose of the " right to die " was brought up to focus for the

terminally-ill.

Ok, I have my **Ultra-Flame Extinguisher 2000** ready...

Also, refrain from personal attacks since this is only a soapbox

response and I know most on here probably do support this article.

Irene

PS. Gret - I'm not picking on you personally. I would've responded on

this email regardless of who sent it, just so you know. :>

[Guest guest]

This is going to be short since this doesn't directly relate to

dwarfism, but I can't resist to bite the bait. Then I'll shut up.

Being devil's advocate, doctor assisted suicide is not as horrible as

it claims the practice to be -- as having the ability to " kill " whoever

they deem unworthy of life. It's a lot more complicated than that and

those who protest the " right to die " usually complain of the moral pain

versus the physical and say it's depricating of the human standard.

Well, I don't know if anyone has read the papers, but Oregon came up

with that law for patients who are terminally-ill and have less than 6

months to live. The first woman I believe who chose to die that way was

practically on her death bed and didn't want to die in a slow and

agonizing manner in the hospital, she wanted to die with dignity with

little pain as possible with her family around there to support her.

The procedure is actually somewhat long, despite arguments against it

and so far, only VERY few have been done so far legally in Oregon. I'd

take it if that was the case for myself. And the government/church is

going to slap me with a felong saying, " that's illegal " after I pass

on.

Being a native Oregonian myself, Oregon is a pretty liberal culture and

most of the people there are a lot more open about religion and moral

standards than elsewhere. Does that mean we're monsters? No. Does it

mean we devalue life? No. Do we believe everyone has their own entitled

right over their bodies and what they believe in? Yes.

How is this different when we have to put to sleep our beloved pets at

the vet? They are as precious as any family member and it's acceptable

in society to " put them down? " What's the difference? I would be

devastated if I had to do that one day (I have a cat who I absolutely

adore)... but if I had a choice, I would want what's best for her,

right?

HOWEVER, don't get me wrong -- " the right to die " is indeed a concern

if this practice is used on patients who have may have a condition or

disability but who may still live a fruitful and long life. This is a

somewhat similar to the issue of genetic-screening but the... general

purpose of the " right to die " was brought up to focus for the

terminally-ill.

Ok, I have my **Ultra-Flame Extinguisher 2000** ready...

Also, refrain from personal attacks since this is only a soapbox

response and I know most on here probably do support this article.

Irene

PS. Gret - I'm not picking on you personally. I would've responded on

this email regardless of who sent it, just so you know. :>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, irene_temp1 wrote:

> The procedure is actually somewhat long, despite arguments against it

> and so far, only VERY few have been done so far legally in Oregon. I'd

> take it if that was the case for myself. .... the general purpose

> of the " right to die " was brought up to focus for the terminally-ill.

Glad you spoke up, Irene, because I agree with you 100%...

Oregon's assisted suicide law is one of the most forward-thinking, humane

laws written. It is strictly for people who are in a late-stage terminal

illness who meet stringent safeguards. It's for people who have no chance

to survive their illness, and wish to control the circumstances of their

death to avoid agonizing pain and/or loss of personal dignity. It is only

done as a result of a VOLUNTARY request by a patient, who is able to

communicate with their doctor, and who has been determined not to be

suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression

causing impaired judgment.

Ashcroft needs to focus his energy on more important things than

meddling with voter-approved state laws and covering up nude statues.

Dave

[Guest guest]

These are just my views on Irene's post. They are not against her

personally.

> How is this different when we have to put to sleep our beloved pets

at the vet? They are as precious as any family member and it's

acceptable in society to " put them down? " What's the difference? I

would be devastated if I had to do that one day (I have a cat who I

absolutely adore)... but if I had a choice, I would want what's best

for her, right?

Well, for one, my cat wasn't the one who gave birth to me and raised

me. My cat didn't change my diapers, help me to walk or teach me my

first words. My cat wasn't the one who drove me to my first day of

Kindergarten, made sure I had my lunch packed and that I was dressed

warm for school that day too. I think you get the picture without

having to say more.

>The first woman I believe who chose to die that way was practically

on her death bed and didn't want to die in a slow and agonizing

manner in the hospital, she wanted to die with dignity with little

pain as possible with her family around there to support her.

To that I say, if they wanna die, so be it, but let them die at home.

Now, I'm not against their right to choose to die, but the Right To

Die Movement wants to have it both ways. In other words, they not

only want their subject to die in the way they have so chosen but

also in a public hospital supported by tax payer's dollars. I feel

that is wrong. Why? To me, I have always viewed a hospital as a place

of birth, growth and of helping people to become WELL either thru

medication and/or surgery. Not as a place for someone to make a

transition from life to death. Now, I know people do die in the

hospital, but they don't go there to die purposely.

To those who wanna die, go ahead. I won't stop you, but please do it

on yer own time. With yer own family members assisting you too (not

doctors from hospitals who could using their valuable time assisting

those who wanna live). Also, on yer property for which you own and

paid taxes for, not on hospital grounds where millions of tax payer's

money was spent to find cures, give birth and extend life.

Even when we put-down " Whiskers " , we pay for it out of our own

pocket. Totally. None of it is paid by Kitty Blue Cross, Kitty Blue

Shield or Kitty Mutual of Omaha. I say that kiddingly, but I don't

doubt that is the next step the Right To Die movement wants to seek

if it hasn't already. To have the person's medical insurance pay for

their death TOTALLY with no expense being incurred on the patient or

their family. Expenses such as these, the medication that was used to

end their life, their room and all the expenses that go with that and

last but not least the nursing staff that was by their side the whole

time to monitor THEIR dying. Add to that, a ton of a thousand other

minor expenses such as the needles used, gloves, swabs, etc... I kid

you not. Have you been in a hospital lately? They charge you for

everything and I mean EVERYTHING.

In other words, when I down Whisker's, my fellow tax payers don't pay

for it nor does my insurance rates go up from it. However, we all pay

for it when the hospital " purposely " ends grandma's life and if

their insurance is forced to cover it or even part of it, that too

will be passed on to us. Trust me, it will. So, in a way, grandma did

NOT die on her own as her family so alleges, because I and many

others paid for her dying too. That is what I resent because I pay

into my medical insurance and donate to my local hospital to keep the

living alive, not the other way around.

These are just my thoughts, not a flame.

luv, grady

PS-Before any think I want Grandma or anyone else who has so chosen

to die to die, I would hope most of all they would reconsider their

choice. <<< Notice I said their choice, I wouldn't stop them, altho I

would ask them to reconsider:). Even though, I know that my asking

may be for selfish reasons, but I believe one can find dignity in

pain and their willing to endure it too. It shows a strength and a

willingness on their part to not give up and maybe that what I needed

to see as one of their siblings, sons or husband or what have you

more rather than seeing letting go which ANYONE can do (in my mind).

However, it takes a remarkable soul to endure that and wanna live:).

My opinions only.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks, wow there's some interesting debates on this list lately,

How about looking at this a different way. How much tax payers money is spent

on leg lengthening, ops, cochlear implants, cosmetic surgery, etc. because

society tells us that we should look a certain way and act a certain way. Has

anyone ever thought about the astronomical cost implications of the pressures

to conform??? So if anyone is complaining about their medical insurance being

sky high, how about raising public awareness that being say, short , fat and

deaf aint that bad after all. The people who do care and campaign about the

medical profession or should I say medical oppression, are at least doing

something about it instead of just talking about it :-)

Liz

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, gradysir wrote:

> Not as a place for someone to make a

> transition from life to death. Now, I know people do die in the

> hospital, but they don't go there to die purposely.

I disagree... the kinds of terminally-ill people we are talking about

sometimes do enter the hospital knowing that when they next leave it they

will no longer be alive. They go there simply so that they can be

administered pain medication to ease their suffering as they pass.

However, the Oregon law does not stipulate that the assisted suicide must

occur in a hospital. All it does is allow a terminally ill person who

passes a number of very stringent requirements to request medication from

their doctor, and allows the doctor to grant that request.

> To those who wanna die, go ahead. I won't stop you, but please do it

> on yer own time. With yer own family members assisting you too (not

> doctors from hospitals who could using their valuable time assisting

> those who wanna live). Also, on yer property for which you own and

> paid taxes for, not on hospital grounds where millions of tax payer's

> money was spent to find cures, give birth and extend life.

This argument doesn't make a lot of sense. If the concern is really for

taxpayer dollars (which would certainly be no concern of mine if someone

was suffering needlessly), assisted suicide would probable SAVE taxpayers

money, and free up said doctors' time and efforts to focus on the living,

rather than extend someone's suffering for weeks or months in a hospital

bed. And let me reiterate for those who are prone to misinterpreting what

they read: I am absolutely not saying that saving taxpayer dollars is any

kind of justification for assisted suicide -- I am simply refuting the

logic of grady's " taxpayer dollars " argument.

But in fact, the Oregon law reads: " Any governmental entity that incurs

costs resulting from a person terminating his or her life pursuant to the

provisions of ORS 127.800 to 127.897 in a public place shall have a claim

against the estate of the person to recover such costs and reasonable

attorney fees related to enforcing the claim. [1999 c.423 s.5a] "

So the taxpayer dollar issue is really a moot one anyway, since part of

the deal in Oregon's Death with Dignity law is that your estate will pay

back the taxpayers any cost that is incurred them as a result of the

suicide.

What people like Ashcroft and others who are opposed to this law need to

do is to fully understand it before protesting it. Many of the protestors'

arguments are illogical and irrelevant, and serve only to cloud the issue

by spreading misinformation and ignorance, a phenomenon which, as LPs, we

should already be sensitive and sensible enough to try and prevent.

Dave

P.S. Before anyone attempts to debate this issue further, I suggest you

read fully the text of the Oregon law, as I have, so that you don't put

yourself in a position to be made a fool of:

http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/pas/ors.htm

[Guest guest]

gradysir wrote:

> To that I say, if they wanna die, so be it, but let them die at home.

> Now, I'm not against their right to choose to die, but the Right To

> Die Movement wants to have it both ways. In other words, they not

> only want their subject to die in the way they have so chosen but

> also in a public hospital supported by tax payer's dollars. I feel

> that is wrong. Why? To me, I have always viewed a hospital as a place

> of birth, growth and of helping people to become WELL either thru

> medication and/or surgery. Not as a place for someone to make a

> transition from life to death. Now, I know people do die in the

> hospital, but they don't go there to die purposely.

[stuff clipped]

>

> However, we all pay

> for it when the hospital " purposely " ends grandma's life and if

> their insurance is forced to cover it or even part of it, that too

> will be passed on to us. Trust me, it will. So, in a way, grandma did

> NOT die on her own as her family so alleges, because I and many

> others paid for her dying too. That is what I resent because I pay

> into my medical insurance and donate to my local hospital to keep the

> living alive, not the other way around.

Grady,

There's a couple of flaws in your arguments:

1. Keeping a terminally ill patient alive as long as possible, and in a

reasonable amount of comfort (which may be impossible), will cost

taxpayers WAY MORE MONEY than doctor assisted suicide.

2. Hospitals are there to provide for quality of life. Death,

ironically, is a life process and if a terminally patient cannot have

their lives improved through medicine, then death is the more humane

option. I prefer my hospitals to be humane.

I, like Irene and Dave, am from Oregon and I was in the state when the

doctor assisted suicide bill came up to vote. At that time, the

naysayers were afraid that the bill would open the door for the

clinically depressed to commit suicide. Over time, the reverse has

proven to be true. Many people have been saved by the bill because it

requires a psychiatrist perform a full evaluation of a patient before

they can seek the physician's help. People who would otherwise not have

been treated have gotten referrals for mental health.

-Bill Bradford

>

[Guest guest]

I see everyone's points, I do. I guess, I just have a different mind

set is all.

Plus, I admit I neither read the full law nor am I from Oregon, not

that this is my excuse, I just have a different mind set concerning

life. When it should end and who should end it for us and how to also.

I'll only reply this last time to number one and two below.

About number one: That was my point in my post exactly. That is, if

they want to die, then don't keep them alive by force or by law which

would cost the tax payers more. Let them die in peace in their own

homes with their own family members administering the pain medication

they may need to ease their " easing out " . Why not? Just asking. I

know too that this would not work in every situation, it's just a

point of mine, not a law. Think about how much money the hospital

will save by allowing this to happen in the patient's home before

they even have set up a room to let it happen in the hospital?

About number two: Again, I see where you're coming from and I

understand it, but to me one's home would seem to be even a more

humane place than a hospital with its sterile walls and halls and

beepers and bells going off. Again, just my opinion and again I know

that this would not work in every situation.

> 1. Keeping a terminally ill patient alive as long as possible, and

in a reasonable amount of comfort (which may be impossible), will

cost taxpayers WAY MORE MONEY than doctor assisted suicide.

> 2. Hospitals are there to provide for quality of life. Death,

ironically, is a life process and if a terminally patient cannot have

their lives improved through medicine, then death is the more humane

option. I prefer my hospitals to be humane.

Thanks for answering me, everyone.

grady