>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild >>> <j...@xmission.com> wrote: >>>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten >>>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing >>>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other >>>> possible ideas.
>>> Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep) >>> ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each >>> year.
>>> Though I see that as an argument for private medical >>> insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument >>> about abortion. If we are going to have government >>> medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that >>> are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
>> Of course, and without it we would have unlimited resources just >> like all >> sick people in the US have now.
>>> If you are in favor of that, say so, as I just did. If >>> you deny being in favor of that, you are being >>> hypocritical and dishonest when you disagree with the >>> original poster.
>>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
>> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise. Reality is so annoying isn't it?
> How odd, indeed. We do NOT have government financed medical care, yet > we DO have euthanasia, involuntary and otherwise.
> Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) part, though in her > case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
> TCross
Ah, I see that you do not allow reality to bother you. In any event, and so you can ignore it again, you said that (in effect) government financed health care would inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia; and I pointed out that in my country we have government financed health care, but euthanasia is illegal. Never mind though; it is just reality.
James A. Donald wrote: > "James A. Donald" >>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> "thomas p." >> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
> I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is > furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to agree > with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, and that > this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a slippery slope to > euthanasia.
Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are receiving excellent medical care. They have the same health insurance that everybody has, and both hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in exactly the same way as for the care of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is doing quite well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope to euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number of people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting that people should have control over their own lives is, in my opinion, sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that and compassion. There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid of people gaining such autonomy.
> <j...@xmission.com> wrote: > > Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten > > because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing > > variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other > > possible ideas.
> Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep) > ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each > year.
> Though I see that as an argument for private medical > insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument > about abortion. If we are going to have government > medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that > are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
> If you are in favor of that, say so, as I just did. If > you deny being in favor of that, you are being > hypocritical and dishonest when you disagree with the > original poster.
> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > you have to agree with the original poster that the > Netherlands is rotting from within.
Of course the United States practices euthanasia in private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy. Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill a very sick and weak person. The whole purpose of it is to cause the patient to die within days, instead of lingering for weeks or months.
> >>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild > >>> <j...@xmission.com> wrote: > >>>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten > >>>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing > >>>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other > >>>> possible ideas.
> >>> Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep) > >>> ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each > >>> year.
> >>> Though I see that as an argument for private medical > >>> insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument > >>> about abortion. If we are going to have government > >>> medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that > >>> are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
> >> Of course, and without it we would have unlimited resources just > >> like all > >> sick people in the US have now.
> >>> If you are in favor of that, say so, as I just did. If > >>> you deny being in favor of that, you are being > >>> hypocritical and dishonest when you disagree with the > >>> original poster.
> >>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the > >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> >> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have > >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise. Reality is so annoying isn't it?
> > How odd, indeed. We do NOT have government financed medical care, yet > > we DO have euthanasia, involuntary and otherwise.
> > Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) part, though in her > > case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
> > TCross
> Ah, I see that you do not allow reality to bother you. In any event, and so > you can ignore it again, you said that (in effect) government financed > health care would inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia; and I pointed > out that in my country we have government financed health care, but > euthanasia is illegal.
You have confused the posters on this thread. Would you like to try again?
> James A. Donald wrote: > > "James A. Donald" > >>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have > >>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then > >>> you have to agree with the original poster that the > >>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
> > "thomas p." > >> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have > >> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
> > I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is > > furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to agree > > with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, and that > > this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a slippery slope to > > euthanasia.
> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are receiving > excellent medical care. They have the same health insurance that everybody > has, and both hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in exactly > the same way as for the care of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this > country, abortion is not and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark > is doing quite well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope > to euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number of > people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting that > people should have control over their own lives is, in my opinion, > sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that and compassion. > There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid of people gaining such > autonomy.
Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse. In traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a murder trial, consent is not a defense.
Euthanisia is a threat to that principle. No doubt all the people in Denmark are nice to each other, all the doctors are law-abiding, and nothing bad ever happens to anyone. But euthanasia would create problems in America because we live among real people.
On Nov 7, 4:46 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:15:22 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
> > Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) part, though in her > > case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
> But in that case, her estranged husband offed her. I have more > confidence in wives and husbands, than in bureaucrats.
To kill their spouses? Certainly. Whatever ones opinion of state medicine, and mine is negative, marriage leads to more murders than almost any other human institution.
Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote: >Terry Cross says... >>Herself the height of parody, her comments are impossible to parody, >>satirize, or even characterize.
>Hmmm.... maybe I should re-phrase that.
>I obviously do care about the law. I meant that I approve of >doctors - *very* occasionally, and out of concern and compassion >for the patient - pushing the law to its limit.
>We need a law against euthanasia to protect the vulnerable, >but we sometimes need to give doctors room to allow for >compassion.
But "Terry" is a rightard and they hate compassion and have no regard for people. To them the only thing that counts is what they want. And no, he doesn't care about legality when the law isn't what he wants.
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild ><j...@xmission.com> wrote: >> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten >> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing >> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other >> possible ideas.
>Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep) >ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each >year.
Terry Cross wrote: > On Nov 7, 7:20 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> James A. Donald wrote: >>> "James A. Donald" >>>>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have >>>>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then >>>>> you have to agree with the original poster that the >>>>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
>>> "thomas p." >>>> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not >>>> have euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
>>> I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is >>> furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to >>> agree with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, >>> and that this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a >>> slippery slope to euthanasia.
>> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are >> receiving excellent medical care. They have the same health >> insurance that everybody has, and both hospitals and doctors are >> reimbursed for their care in exactly the same way as for the care of >> others. Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not and >> it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is doing quite well >> thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope to >> euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number >> of people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting >> that people should have control over their own lives is, in my >> opinion, sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that >> and compassion. There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid >> of people gaining such autonomy.
> Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse. In > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a murder > trial, consent is not a defense.
On the other hand a legal act, such as euthanasia within the legal limits set is not murder. I do not know who "recognizes it as a highway to abuse", but I also do not know of anything that cannot be misused.
> Euthanisia is a threat to that principle. No doubt all the people in > Denmark are nice to each other, all the doctors are law-abiding, and > nothing bad ever happens to anyone.
I made no such claims, nor does anything I said depend on such claims being true. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to play the provincial clown.
But euthanasia would create
> problems in America because we live among real people.
As I said, euthanasia is illegal in Denmark. Some people think it should be legal. Apparently you do not wish to actually discuss the issue and would rather make insulting remarks having nothing to do with anything I posted. That is too bad.
Terry Cross wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:51 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Terry Cross wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> skrev i >>>> meddelelsennews:4rt9f5dfdf04sr9ra309ecr6oifvi2vock@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild >>>>> <j...@xmission.com> wrote: >>>>>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten >>>>>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing >>>>>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other >>>>>> possible ideas.
>>>>> Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep) >>>>> ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each >>>>> year.
>>>>> Though I see that as an argument for private medical >>>>> insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument >>>>> about abortion. If we are going to have government >>>>> medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that >>>>> are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
>>>> Of course, and without it we would have unlimited resources just >>>> like all >>>> sick people in the US have now.
>>>>> If you are in favor of that, say so, as I just did. If >>>>> you deny being in favor of that, you are being >>>>> hypocritical and dishonest when you disagree with the >>>>> original poster.
>>>>> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have >>>>> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then >>>>> you have to agree with the original poster that the >>>>> Netherlands is rotting from within.
>>>> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not >>>> have euthanasia involuntary or otherwise. Reality is so annoying >>>> isn't it?
>>> How odd, indeed. We do NOT have government financed medical care, >>> yet we DO have euthanasia, involuntary and otherwise.
>>> Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) part, though in her >>> case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
>>> TCross
>> Ah, I see that you do not allow reality to bother you. In any event, >> and so you can ignore it again, you said that (in effect) government >> financed health care would inevitably lead to involuntary >> euthanasia; and I pointed out that in my country we have government >> financed health care, but euthanasia is illegal.
> You have confused the posters on this thread. Would you like to try > again?
Just let me know when you would like to discuss the issue.
"thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The > poor are receiving excellent medical care. They have > the same health insurance that everybody has, and both > hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in > exactly the same way as for the care of others. > Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not > and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is > doing quite well thank you.
Yet the alarmingly large number of people dying in a state of "deep sedation" indicates that Denmark is *not* doing quite well, and the only real question is whether the cause of the rot is atheism as the OP argues, or welfarism, as I argue.
The original poster argues that unchristian people will not be concerned for the lives of others, leading to abortion, leading to abortion being redefined as "menstrual extraction", leading to involuntary euthanasia being redefined as "death under deep sedation".
I argue that people are not in fact much concerned for others, and the Christian claim otherwise is as much pretense as the welfare state claim, and so the welfare state, which proposes to treat people as children, necessarily winds up treating them as pets.
> Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope to > euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a > great number of people, i.e. that euthanasia is an > evil to be avoided.
The people who were "deeply sedated", generally did not consent to "deep sedation", nor were informed as to what was in their IV.
> > > Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) > > > part, though in her case it was far from "eu" > > > (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
James A. Donald:
> > But in that case, her estranged husband offed her. I > > have more confidence in wives and husbands, than in > > bureaucrats.
Will in New Haven
> To kill their spouses?
Given the power to dispose of the inconvenient, who is more likely to dispose of the inconvenient? Spouse or bureaucrat?
Obviously the bureaucrat is more likely to dispose of the inconvenient, which is what is happening on an alarmingly large scale in Denmark.
Which internal decay I diagnose as coming from welfarism and bureaucracy, rather than irreligion.
>"thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The >> poor are receiving excellent medical care. They have >> the same health insurance that everybody has, and both >> hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in >> exactly the same way as for the care of others. >> Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not >> and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is >> doing quite well thank you.
>Yet the alarmingly large number of people dying in a >state of "deep sedation" indicates that Denmark is
The lack of credible evidence to justify your idiocy indicates that you are really just motivated by a deep hatred for all things "liberal".
Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote: > The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it > possibly "wipe out the Dutch"?
It is a start. Since there are no end of people who are inconvenient to bureaucrats (for example, we emit carbon) there is no end of people who might need to be euthanized.
More generally, the original poster has a valid point on social policy and reproduction. The patriarchs persuaded, indoctrinated, and coerced women towards chastity and fidelity, resulting in higher male investment in children, and thus higher reproduction rate - less contraception, abortion, late abortion, and early infanticide, more paternal discipline and development for young men.
The fiscal left kills people off at the end of life as I have been arguing, the social left prevents them from beginning as the original poster argues.
Civilization is largely a male activity, transmitted from fathers to sons. Reduced male investment, due to easy divorce and lower female fidelity, interrupts this transmission, so we get a general civilizational decline, which manifests as Detroit and Liverpool turning to wilderness occupied by wild animals on two legs.
That people are not being born, makes extended care for an ever more long lived aged impractical, so the social left results in the fiscal left taking ever more murderous measures.
Of course, the patriarchal society only worked because it was upheld by patriarchs. The original poster wants the state to do what the patriarchs did - but the patriarchs necessarily pursued their own interests, and the bureaucrats necessarily pursue their own interests.
The bureaucrat wants everyone on welfare. The patriarch wanted young men to support and protect his daughter's children, rather than the patriarch having to do it. Thus the patriarch enforced chastity on his daughter, and monogamy on his son in law, while the bureaucrat wants to destroy marriage. The original poster wants a theocracy that imposes patriarchal values, but a theocracy, being a state, will always impose bureaucratic values, and if Christianity fails to enthusiastically support bureaucratic values, will find a religion that does - in this case, a theocracy that upholds faith in global warming and Gaia worship.
If you want patriarchal values, need patriarchy, not theocracy.
>Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it >> possibly "wipe out the Dutch"?
>It is a start.
You're nuts.
> Since there are no end of people who are >inconvenient to bureaucrats (for example, we emit >carbon) there is no end of people who might need to be >euthanized.
Paranoid insanity.
>The fiscal left kills people off at the end of life as I >have been arguing,
Yeah, that whole business of proving people health care really does shorten lives.
>Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it >> possibly "wipe out the Dutch"?
>It is a start.
You're nuts if you really believe that people are being systematically killed off just because they're old.
> Since there are no end of people who are >inconvenient to bureaucrats (for example, we emit >carbon) there is no end of people who might need to be >euthanized.
Paranoid insanity.
>The fiscal left kills people off at the end of life as I >have been arguing,
Yeah, that whole business of providing people health care really does shorten lives.
How much are you getting paid by the health insurance corporations?
On 7 Nov 2009 03:38:36 -0800, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Where do you get your statistics from, and what do you > mean by "involunatarily"? Do you mean death under deep > sedation? I imagine that happens everywhere in the > West. I would very surprised if doctors are leaving > terminally patients in unbearable pain.
If patient dead of IV drug overdose with a drug clicker in his hand that controls the IV, suicide.
If patient dead of IV drug overdose with NO clicker in his hand, murder.
Pain control is morphine. "Deep sedation" is lots of barbiturates - and barbiturates are deadly in large doses.
Barbiturates are not to prevent pain, but to prevent the patient from making a fuss about his medical treatment - or from making a fuss about lack of medical treatment, lack of food, and lack of water, hence given with IV, but without clicker.
The usual procedure for extreme pain control is to give the patient a clicker, whereby the patient directly controls the level of morphine, up to a limit. If no limit, this also gives the patient the option of voluntary euthanasia, by clicking hard enough.
"Sedation" means barbiturates, which means not controlling the patients pain, but rather controlling a dying patients propensity to make a fuss about dying. These barbiturates are applied through the IV, without the patients knowledge, consent, or control, thus death during deep sedation is involuntary euthanasia - murder of the inconvenient and unwanted.
If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of morphine inside him, and morphine clicker in his dead hand, obviously voluntary euthanasia.
If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of barbiturates inside him, the barbiturates administered by IV with no barbiturate clicker, obviously involuntary euthanasia - murder.
"Deep sedation" is never given with a clicker, therefore always involuntary euthanasia.
Paying patients get clickers and morphine, government patients get barbiturates and no clicker. Death "during deep sedation" is barbiturate overdose, barbiturates are not given with clicker, since the objective is to control the patient, not to control the patient's pain, thus death "during deep sedation" is murder.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:59:53 -0800 (PST), tirebiter
> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in > private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy. > Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for > "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill > a very sick and weak person.
If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
Involuntary euthanasia, which is to say murder, is done by putting a large dose of barbiturates ("sedative") in the IV, and is not controlled by a clicker.
Yes, private patients in the United States often get a clicker that they can kill themselves with - but they don't get an IV full of barbiturates that will kill them whether they like it or not.
> If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of > morphine inside him, and morphine clicker in his dead > hand, obviously voluntary euthanasia.
> If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of > barbiturates inside him, the barbiturates administered > by IV with no barbiturate clicker, obviously involuntary > euthanasia - murder.
Correction: These days people use fentanyl clickers, rather than morphine - but the use and effects are similar.
On Nov 7, 7:54 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> James A. Donald
> > If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of > > morphine inside him, and morphine clicker in his dead > > hand, obviously voluntary euthanasia.
> > If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of > > barbiturates inside him, the barbiturates administered > > by IV with no barbiturate clicker, obviously involuntary > > euthanasia - murder.
> Correction: These days people use fentanyl clickers, > rather than morphine - but the use and effects are > similar.
Yes, it's true they don't use morphine any more. The Powers are afraid the poor patient will become addicted, and it will ruin the rest of her life!
On 7 Nov 2009 04:16:03 -0800, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Euthanasia is a very difficult and emotive area and > has nothing to do with the different types of health > systems. It happens everywhere.
It happens everywhere - but who gets to decide?. Who gets to decide *does* depend on the health system.
Further, though it happens everywhere, it is apt to happen a lot more in a health system where bureaucrats decide, and a lot less in a health system where patients decide.
>On 7 Nov 2009 04:16:03 -0800, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> >wrote: >> Euthanasia is a very difficult and emotive area and >> has nothing to do with the different types of health >> systems. It happens everywhere.
>It happens everywhere - but who gets to decide?. Who >gets to decide *does* depend on the health system.
>Further, though it happens everywhere, it is apt to >happen a lot more in a health system where bureaucrats >decide, and a lot less in a health system where patients >decide.
Yeah, it happens where there is health care and not where people are just expected to die without medical care.
>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:59:53 -0800 (PST), tirebiter >> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in >> private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy. >> Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for >> "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill >> a very sick and weak person.
>If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled >by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and >dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is >voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
You're completely nuts. Apparently you think that letting people treat their pain is killing them. You would rather that they be in agony without any medical care at all.
You are a prime example of what happens when cult ideology trumps common sense.
|
