posted December 01, 2004 04:08 AM              

I am truly blessed to have the happy, healthy children that I have.

posted December 01, 2004 11:46 PM            

One of the things to remember is that rules as to which innocents to kill are fluid and can change by decree once the principle is established that the practice can be sanctioned.

I am wholly opposed to the idea of giving anyone the right to decide which life is not worth living.

posted December 02, 2004 12:53 AM              

Sometimes babies come out so messed up that, no matter how much surgery they undergo, their chances are never good. If it becomes apparent that the baby cannot be saved, I believe it is acceptable to put the baby to sleep with the parent's consent.

posted December 03, 2004 01:29 AM            

quote:

---

Thats an interesting statement, jwhop... considering that you would like to mandate HOW everyone lives their life.MK

---

posted December 05, 2004 02:53 AM              

What does it matter to you, jwhop, what a grieving family and their personal doctor decide to do in a terrible situation like this?

What, really, do you or your opinion have to do with any of these circumstances?

Why are you, or quiksilver, or me, given the right to judge a person, their lives, and their decisions?

Are you willing to pay the medical bills, nurse a deadly ill child that is SUFFERING endlessly and needlessly, to have it destroy any hope and beauty in the face of that pain?

Unless you are in it, stop passing judgement.

If you are ever in it, theres your chance to make your decision.

Until then, back off.

I am so D@MN tired of people, especially people on this board- of ALL places- passing judgement on how other people choose to live their lives. Gay marriage, abortion, liberals vs conservatives, God, drugs, WHATEVER!!!

Whatever happened to "do unto others as you would have done unto you." ??? or is this no longer possible, since ever American seems to think that every OTHER American should live just like THEM.

As long as it doesnt affect you, keep it to yourself.

Hello, tolerance.

posted December 05, 2004 04:51 AM              

I always wonder, when this topic is brought up, if the same view would be applied in the case of ones extended family; pets... It is forever interesting how some will try to justify, by simply throwing around the word ' Human '.... be it canine, feline, human or, otherwise, all are the same, in terms of LIFE. Yet, MK has stated how I, personally, feel;

Do unto others, as you would have done, unto you.

Until, the mile has been experienced....

posted December 05, 2004 10:49 AM              

quote:

---

One of the things to remember is that rules as to which innocents to kill are fluid and can change by decree once the principle is established that the practice can be sanctioned.

---

posted December 10, 2004 04:55 PM            

I agree! The freedoms in our country are slowly degrading as the definitnion of freedom is being warped to fit current ideology. It seems that instead of staying out of our lives, (small govt), the new conservative wave is towards utter fascism.

posted December 13, 2004 01:30 PM            

Is this beginning to sound a little like the Nazi plan to purify German bloodlines? Wonder how long it will be until the elderly can be included within the scope of the new euthanasia rules of death.

Think I told you that once you authorize the principle of medically killing people under one set of rules, those rules can and will change to include others not originally covered.

Now, if the Dutch had an ounce of common sense, they would grab those doctors and legislators agitating for euthanasia, declare them mentally incompetent and therefore unable to enjoy a normal quality of life, shoot them up with massive doses of morphine and shuffle them off this mortal coil. Of course were it up to me, I would just hang them all and be done with them, under a rule I live by....do unto others and in this case do unto them first.

Sounds wonderful doesn't it that they refer to this legislation as a patients' bill of rights. Stand still, you have the right to a medically induced death and I have the right to decide when to kill you.

Monday, Dec. 13, 2004 12:05 a.m. EST
French Law OKs 'Passive' Euthanasia

A so-called "patient's rights" bill will allow French doctors, acting at the request of patients and their families, to end medical treatment that is seen to be maintaining life artificially.

The bill, called by French lawmakers a "passive" form of euthanasia, is not, they insist similar to the situation in the Netherlands and Belgium, where doctors are not prosecuted for actively ending the life of a patient. In the case of the French law the measure deals mainly with acts of omission, CNS News reported.

Story Continues Below

Under the new law, Doctors will also not be penalized for administering - at the request of patients suffering from extreme pain - higher-than-normal doses of medication, even if the drugs have a secondary and subsequent effect of hastening death. Moreover, a gravely or terminally-ill patient will be allowed to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment.

French health minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told lawmakers the proposed legislation would not "legalize the right to give death."

"A humane and dignified death is possible without having to fall back on euthanasia," he said.

"This legislation is one that allows dying but does not allow killing," explained lawmaker Jean Leonetti who visited Belgium and the Netherlands to study their euthanasia laws. "That is how it is different from euthanasia."

Lawmakers in the Netherlands, CNS News reported, are currently considering guidelines for mercy killing involving patients who are considered to be in severe pain but are incapable of deciding for themselves - a list that would include babies, children, severely mentally ill people and those in an irreversible coma.

posted December 13, 2004 03:24 PM            

I hope NO ONE here will have to experience the pain or the suffering that those little babies and their parents are subjected to.

posted December 13, 2004 06:00 PM            

Should something happen to someone you love- and say the "god-doctors" cannot reach any next of kin- you would prefer they make the call to "euthanize" them? Sorry, but I don't want YOU (and the small minority of people that share your views) to make that decision for me.

As far as pet euthanasia: It is still hard, until YOU have had to actually put that needle into the dog / cat and watch them die, you have NO idea how hard it is.

Still there are rules. Most veterinarians will not put down animals for simple stupid things- even when people want them to. The ER places I worked at made sure that the owners understood what was happening and used euthanasia when the pain killers no longer worked.

Ironically - humans seem so callous when it comes to decisions about other human beings (ahh..they are going to die anyway---let's help them along) but when it comes to animals 99% of the people that came into the ER places I worked went through heroic efforts to save their animals. Even those with cancer - radiations / chemo was preferred over euth-juice.

AND in those hospitals Veterinarian's are NOT allowed to make that decision for the animal OR the owner. The only cases is when it is a "good sam" or a "county" animal that comes in.

This paragraph is particulary unsettling

"The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates. "

Does anyone realize how close this is to Nazi Germany's method of cleansing? jwhop is right - "Natural Evolution" People..think about it..

Evolution weans out the weak- at some point a group will decide what is considered weak and what is strength. Missing a Leg? Well, that could pose a problem later in life, cause major discomfort and prevent the poor child from assimilating into everyday normalcy- better off to euthanize the kid.

Bad heart? Congenital heart defect - yep, better to save on a transplant and euthanize now.

Wow..just think we can start euthanizing and aborting all babies that the "panel" feels will dilute the strengths in the populations- Sickle cell anemia, chromosomal abnormalities, Tay Sachs disease- hell we can even start weeding out the rare blood types.

posted December 13, 2004 08:00 PM              

Its not right to judge THEM.

And, also, I really get disgusted by how so many folks self righteously use "i am just expressing my OPINION" and "its free sppppppppppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech" whine whine whine

to judge, criticize, and slander people they dont even know.

That was the issue of my post.

Not some group of doctors deciding who gets to live or die. Thats a gross exaggeration of this topic, and you know it.

posted December 13, 2004 09:00 PM              

I firmly believe let nature take its course, but it's NOT natural to euthanize.

Where there is life, there is hope, I agree with that.

I also know nature is right to take it's course, if the baby is severely retarded, and/or is deformed, in primitive times, it would be left to die, and return in another body temple.

-life is having the ability to live it

------------------
*Formally known as NeoStar
========================

O space and time! now I see it is true, what I guess'd at,
What I guess'd when I loaf'd on the grass,
What I guess'd while I lay alone in my bed,
And again as I walk'd the beach under the paling stars of the morning.*