Belgium Euthanizes Deaf Twins Going Blind

Why can't we do this here in the USA?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/belgium-euthanizes-deaf-twins-going-blind/

It is odd... I can't think of a compelling reason that it should be prohibited in this country.

Coffee?? A bottle of Wild Turkey would be my drink of choice if it was gonna be my last one..

It's very disturbing to me.

Death, in and of itself, is disturbing, Neko.

Still, I watched my Mom die a horrible death after 4 long years of suffering. She eventually asked if we would allow her to die.....we did.

Sometimes, it's kindest.

Yes, disturbing and those who make the final decision will never be totally satisfied that they made the "right" one.

It's not the government's right to decide, but ours.

If they were in agony, with no hope of recovery, I would understand. But going blind? It's just very disturbing to me.

Understood, but is it the government's right to decide or is it more a personal decision?

But where does it end? The article says that the law is about people who are suffering being able to choose to die. These men were blind. They were not in physical pain. What if someone who has a controllable illness and can live a relatively normal life says that they are suffering and they want to die? The article mentions maybe allowing the children of parents with dementia making the decision to euthanize them. This is also disturbing to me. My mother had dementia. I cannot imagine making that decision for her.

I get your idea and thinking that government should not decide. Part of me agrees with that. Actually I agree about 90% with that. But should government encourage this sort of thing for people who are blind? Or children who have parents with dementia? It just seems to cheapen life, to me.

Nekochan wrote:But where does it end? The article says that the law is about people who are suffering being able to choose to die. These men were blind. They were not in physical pain. What if someone who has a controllable illness and can live a relatively normal life says that they are suffering and they want to die? The article mentions maybe allowing the children of parents with dementia making the decision to euthanize them. This is also disturbing to me. My mother had dementia. I cannot imagine making that decision for her.

I get your idea and thinking that government should not decide. Part of me agrees with that. Actually I agree about 90% with that. But should government encourage this sort of thing for people who are blind? Or children who have parents with dementia? It just seems to cheapen life, to me.

Neither the government nor the media should play a part in any of it, to my way of thinking.

It's personal, entirely personal.

We would be better off not reading the media hype and totally revolt against any government intrusion.

Been there, as you have. We seem to cite our own personal accounts...which to me only intensifies the fact that it is...........personal.

Can we euthanize sal and wtm?
It would save me from giving them a truck load of negative votes.

Hey Neko,

Like Paige's new Mardi Gras outfit?

Just picked up the hat today.......ain't she one glamorous girlie?

stormwatch89 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:But where does it end? The article says that the law is about people who are suffering being able to choose to die. These men were blind. They were not in physical pain. What if someone who has a controllable illness and can live a relatively normal life says that they are suffering and they want to die? The article mentions maybe allowing the children of parents with dementia making the decision to euthanize them. This is also disturbing to me. My mother had dementia. I cannot imagine making that decision for her.

I get your idea and thinking that government should not decide. Part of me agrees with that. Actually I agree about 90% with that. But should government encourage this sort of thing for people who are blind? Or children who have parents with dementia? It just seems to cheapen life, to me.

Neither the government nor the media should play a part in any of it, to my way of thinking.

It's personal, entirely personal.

We would be better off not reading the media hype and totally revolt against any government intrusion.

Been there, as you have. We seem to cite our own personal accounts...which to me only intensifies the fact that it is...........personal.

Yes, I agree it's a very personal issue.

stormwatch89 wrote:Hey Neko,

Like Paige's new Mardi Gras outfit?

Just picked up the hat today.......ain't she one glamorous girlie?

Love it!

And she looks so thrilled to be wearing it!

Nekochan wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Hey Neko,

Like Paige's new Mardi Gras outfit?

Just picked up the hat today.......ain't she one glamorous girlie?

Love it!

And she looks so thrilled to be wearing it!

She's a girlie girl, whereas Mom tends more towards tomboy.

Nekochan wrote:But where does it end? The article says that the law is about people who are suffering being able to choose to die. These men were blind. They were not in physical pain. What if someone who has a controllable illness and can live a relatively normal life says that they are suffering and they want to die? The article mentions maybe allowing the children of parents with dementia making the decision to euthanize them. This is also disturbing to me. My mother had dementia. I cannot imagine making that decision for her.

I get your idea and thinking that government should not decide. Part of me agrees with that. Actually I agree about 90% with that. But should government encourage this sort of thing for people who are blind? Or children who have parents with dementia? It just seems to cheapen life, to me.

I think people should be able to choose how they live and die. It's not someone else's decision to determine the quality of my life and how I should live it.

If someone really wants to kill themselves, most people can find a way without the government's help. But I see a big difference between someone who is terminally ill and suffering than someone who just decides that they are unhappy with the way their life is going.

I just don't see that the government should be involved in helping with the killing because someone is going blind or because the kids have decided for their mom or dad that their life isn't worth living any longer.

PkrBum wrote:It is odd... I can't think of a compelling reason that it should be prohibited in this country.

Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient

Eugene, Ore., Jun 6, 2008 / 01:09 am (CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

Read more:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/oregon_health_plan_covers_assisted_suicide_not_drugs_for_cancer_patient/

Nekochan wrote:If someone really wants to kill themselves, most people can find a way without the government's help. But I see a big difference between someone who is terminally ill and suffering than someone who just decides that they are unhappy with the way their life is going.

I just don't see that the government should be involved in helping with the killing because someone is going blind or because the kids have decided for their mom or dad that their life isn't worth living any longer.

No, the government should not "assist". Agreed.

I guess my point of view is that the government should not be, in any way, involved.

Markle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It is odd... I can't think of a compelling reason that it should be prohibited in this country.

Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient

Eugene, Ore., Jun 6, 2008 / 01:09 am (CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

Read more:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/oregon_health_plan_covers_assisted_suicide_not_drugs_for_cancer_patient/

It's one of, if not the, most difficult of all the dilemmas we face. You can see the value in prolonging life vs bringing on death. But you can also try to appreciate the suffering that can cause. And if you really care about human beings it's hardly ever an easy choice to make. No laws do it justice.

Belgium has socialized medicine...so the government is involved.

I don't want to see anyone suffer. I understand someone who is terminal and suffering wanting to end their life. I am very sympathetic to that. But I am also very concerned about things like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285423/Half-Belgiums-euthanasia-nurses-admit-killing-consent.html

Dreamsglore wrote:
I think people should be able to choose how they live and die. It's not someone else's decision to determine the quality of my life and how I should live it.

And yet your own insistence that the government be involved in health care ensures just that.

If people are free to choose then they shouldn't have to be coerced by your all powerful government to purchase health care either.

This last part is the choice of a person who is free to choose.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Nekochan wrote:If someone really wants to kill themselves, most people can find a way without the government's help. But I see a big difference between someone who is terminally ill and suffering than someone who just decides that they are unhappy with the way their life is going.

I just don't see that the government should be involved in helping with the killing because someone is going blind or because the kids have decided for their mom or dad that their life isn't worth living any longer.

My father put the responsibility of determining if it was time in my hands. His wish was not to be connected to a machine for the rest of his life.

Fortunately I never had to exercise that decision. He went to bed one evening and never woke up.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk



My will reads the same way.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Nekochan wrote:If someone really wants to kill themselves, most people can find a way without the government's help. But I see a big difference between someone who is terminally ill and suffering than someone who just decides that they are unhappy with the way their life is going.

I just don't see that the government should be involved in helping with the killing because someone is going blind or because the kids have decided for their mom or dad that their life isn't worth living any longer.

My father put the responsibility of determining if it was time in my hands. His wish was not to be connected to a machine for the rest of his life.

Fortunately I never had to exercise that decision. He went to bed one evening and never woke up.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk



My will reads the same way.

This kind of advanced planning helps take the burden off of loved ones when they are faced with a difficult decision. And it ensures that your wishes are followed through on if you ever are in the situation that such a decision needs to be made.

But I think that making the decision to not have your mom or dad be hooked up on life support is a totally different thing than making the choice to take their life because they have dementia.