(Close Window)
Topic: RIP Brittany Maynard
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 2, 2014 09:19PM)
Http://time.com/3553770/brittany-maynard-dies/?ncid=webmail1/

The new face of euthanasia. Her story got a lot of traction...I think it'll be a significant force in gradually changing things, for better or worse. For better, IMO; I expect that will have some strong agreement and some strong disagreement.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 2, 2014 09:31PM)
I found the video very disturbing. Obviously the woman in the video was not going through excruciating pain; of course I don't know what her condition was when she killed herself, or what her condition would have been had she chosen not to kill herself. All too upsetting--I really don't want to just make this some dry legal discussion.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 2, 2014 09:40PM)
I strongly agree with Lobo. She died with dignity and, faced with a slow and excruciating death, took control of her own fate.

May she RIP.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 2, 2014 10:20PM)
I guess they are giving this stuff top billing because they are looking for volunteers.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 2, 2014 10:46PM)
Yes, because it's all part of he plan to depopulate the world.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 2, 2014 10:48PM)
You should really be thinking about getting bumped off at your age. Have you got your kit ready?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 2, 2014 10:49PM)
I'm planning on living forever. So far, so good.

Btw, who told you my age, anyway?!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 2, 2014 10:53PM)
Doctor Death.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 2, 2014 11:09PM)
Is everything just a big joke to you? I really don't that this is a funny topic, tommy. I once knew a person who was faced with the same decision.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Nov 3, 2014 12:38AM)
I support her decision. Having seen what the long drawn-out path looks like, I know I would do the same.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 3, 2014 04:07AM)
As is the case with many things changing in American society--all changes that the late Jerry Falwell warned us about--there seems to be little in the way of objection that doesn't somehow spring up from religious beliefs. Gay marriage, for example, is difficult to oppose without resorting to some kind of religious or orthodox or "traditional" definition of what a family is.

But America explicitly rejects religion-based Constitutional law-making. Laws which have religious foundations are ultimately doomed.

It was a sad day when conservativism forgot that the separation of church and state had its foundations in the desire to keep the state out of the pulpit rather than keeping the pulpit out of the state. Conservatives have forgotten their own history.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 3, 2014 04:32AM)
[quote]On Nov 3, 2014, stoneunhinged wrote:
As is the case with many things changing in American society--all changes that the late Jerry Falwell warned us about--there seems to be little in the way of objection that doesn't somehow spring up from religious beliefs. Gay marriage, for example, is difficult to oppose without resorting to some kind of religious or orthodox or "traditional" definition of what a family is.

[b]But America explicitly rejects religion-based Constitutional law-making. Laws which have religious foundations are ultimately doomed.
[/quote][/b]

Yes and no. Or, not really. There's no problem whatsoever with the fact that opposition to gay marriage is in no small part religious-based. There IS a problem with the fact that it violates the Equal Protection Claise of the 14th Amendment. You can't establish or prevent exercise of a religion, but you CAN pass laws in accordance with the moral principles of your religious beliefs - in the same way that agnostics and atheists pass laws in accordance with the principles of THEIR religious beliefs - as long as they don't violate the constitution. But that violation isn't inherent in the fact that the law's support is or was based on a religious belief.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 3, 2014 05:03AM)
Yes, I was much too imprecise with that statement. I stand corrected.

(Except for the fact that no one is supposed to admit mistakes on Internet forums.)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Nov 3, 2014 07:14AM)
[quote]On Nov 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
but you CAN pass laws in accordance with the moral principles of your religious beliefs - in the same way that agnostics and atheists pass laws in accordance with the principles of THEIR religious beliefs - [/quote]

Since agnostics/atheists don't subscribe to any religion, their beliefs cannot be characterized as "religious beliefs". A better wording here would have been "secular beliefs". I hope that's what you meant.


Ron
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Nov 3, 2014 07:25AM)
So sad. RIP Brittany Maynard...

Imho, she should've tried to break some dangerous World Record before she went.

No joke, really. She would've had nothing to lose.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Nov 3, 2014 07:58AM)
Something tells me she tried to live as fully as one could with the cards she was dealt. I hope Lobo is correct that her story will cause some debate about the issue...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 3, 2014 10:30AM)
[quote]On Nov 3, 2014, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
but you CAN pass laws in accordance with the moral principles of your religious beliefs - in the same way that agnostics and atheists pass laws in accordance with the principles of THEIR religious beliefs - [/quote]

Since agnostics/atheists don't subscribe to any religion, their beliefs cannot be characterized as "religious beliefs". A better wording here would have been "secular beliefs". I hope that's what you meant.


Ron [/quote]

I actually meant "moral beliefs." Good catch.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 3, 2014 10:54AM)
“LONDON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - It used to be an issue just for the terminally ill. Now as populations around the world age, governments are increasingly being confronted with the taboo idea of dying as something people can volunteer to do.

"The demand for the option, if not the practice, is growing rapidly," said Dr. Philip Nitschke, 61, founder and director of the pro-euthanasia group Exit International.

The Australian doctor -- nicknamed Dr Death for his work on suicide -- is travelling the world to teach people how to end their lives safely with a suicide drug-testing kit.”

Very few will go down this path, but almost every 75-year old I meet now sees merit in having their own bottle of Nembutal in the cupboard as an insurance policy, in case things get bad," Nitschke told Reuters, referring to the barbiturate used as a sedative.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/21/idUSLB658876

That’s just one of many. If you look you find this stuff is in the news and loads of it and often now.. It’s in all the papers. Its being given top billing, as they say.

Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person - supposedly. However who else benefits who might put the sick and elderly under pressure to be bumped off and promoting it? Has anyone mentioned money yet? Is the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life the elephant in the room?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 3, 2014 10:59AM)
We're all terminally ill; most of us just don't know the details.
Message: Posted by: FatherWilliam57 (Nov 3, 2014 12:27PM)
I read an article last night concerning the drugs she took. In another thread on this site, the death penalty was being discussed (in part). I am curious how the drugs she took were adequate to end life, yet there have been any number of lawsuits brought against the "cocktails" various states use for lethal injection. Perhaps someone like Mr. Cassidy could clarify this for me? Is it simply a matter that one is "voluntary, a choice" while the other is "enforced, a punishment"?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 3, 2014 12:29PM)
[quote]Is the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life the elephant in the room?[/quote]


Tommy- We're not talking about euthanasia for the elderly here. This is about a 29 year old young woman given less than six months to live as a result of terminal brain cancer. As I understand the facts of this case, money was not an issue.

But for the sake of argument, there are vested interests that, obviously, would SUPPORT spending as much money as possible to prolong life, even in hopeless situations. You can't bill for additional medical treatment after the patient dies.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 3, 2014 02:22PM)
“The burden of caring for ageing populations is set to challenge the ability of many countries to maintain investment grade credit ratings in the years ahead, with some likely to fall to junk status as soon as 2020 unless meaningful reforms are made.

Standard and Poor’s, the credit rating agency, said in a report that looked at total ageing costs, that despite efforts at reform in many countries, the burden of cost for the elderly, as a percentage of GDP, is likely to rise significantly, particularly in industrialised economies.”

Financial Times

The burden, eh. They can't afford the burden of caring for ageing populations. The burden, it is also the reason most chose death: they did not want to be a burden financial or otherwise. Laws related to euthanasia would save trillions of dollars. It is not over population but over money as usual. The current governments are engaging in cost-cutting exercises. The reason it is getting top billing is crystal clear to me. As to issue of whether euthanasia should be or not to be legal regarless of age. I think not, as there too many ways for it to be abused.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 3, 2014 03:16PM)
Again, that's not what this case is about. It is simply about a terminally ill patient's right to choose death with dignity on her own terms.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 3, 2014 03:37PM)
I wouldn't count on that, Bob.

See her "new" video that says, "In April she was given six months or less left to live."

http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2014/10/brittany-maynard-death-date

She "died with dignity" on Nov. 1, is that correct?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 3, 2014 04:41PM)
Http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mom-stuns-doctors-beating-deadliest-brain-cancer/story?id=18135106

"'The mind is so much more powerful than anyone can imagine," she said. "People believe that when they get cancer, it will kill them. But I never once thought that.'"

http://www2.mdanderson.org/depts/oncolog/articles/13/6-jun/6-13-1.html

“'I think that people who have been treating this disease for 30 years definitely see this time as the initial stage of a new era,'” Dr. de Groot said. “'A lot of people are thinking that we’re on the verge of a breakthrough that sets us in motion to really improve the survival of patients with glioblastoma.'”
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 3, 2014 11:34PM)
The new and improved pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. Is it her decision, or a bunch of legislators'?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 4, 2014 05:15AM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The new and improved pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.[/quote]

As I said, Jerry Falwell framed the debate this way years ago. I may have imprecisely stated the relationship between religion and constitutional law; but, well, I'm not a lawyer.

So if anything is "new", it's the way that media in 2014 functions differently than in the past.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 4, 2014 06:49AM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The new and improved pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. Is it her decision, or a bunch of legislators'? [/quote]

I think that that framing is interesting, but in the end, not that helpful or useful. Abortion and euthanasia are very different situations for many reasons. I think it would be hard to defend generalities across both topics.

I believe that it should be her choice legally, but it's a very slippery slope, one that I'm not sure we want to be sliding down or encouraging.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 07:49AM)
Don't go trying to pin me down as saying it's not her choice. Of course it's her choice and she has a right to make the choice, as we all do. She also has a right to an informed choice. That's what this is really about, especially when you bring in the doctors. And that's where we've got a quite serious concern in all of this. Doctors have hit plenty of people with that 6 month crap who've long surpassed it, some with complete remission, as we've seen from the article above. Did Brittany jump the gun by sticking to "her" guns on this one, is the question. She was already past the 6 months.

I've worked as a professional in a vet clinic and assisted far too many unnecessary euthanasias. Those that don't fit the mandate are the majority. It's rare euthanasia is carried out as was origninally intended. The influence of the medical system encourages a sway to considering death as the "realistic" current option. The reality that the body is designed to heal isn't given airtime. Those trying to call this something else, need to take a closer look, in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2014 08:11AM)
If this is all about choice than why wouldn't these be about choice?

1. Sell my body parts if I want to?
2. Sell my kid if I want to? (Why can't someone pay me to have a baby for them?)
3. If I want to euthanize, why do I have to prove I'm dying?
4. Why only legalize marijuana? Why not any drug I want to take?

How many greedy kids will browbeat their elderly parent to make this 'decision' so that they can finally get their money on the inheritance? Or maybe just not have to take care of the elderly parent anymore?
Message: Posted by: HudsonView (Nov 4, 2014 10:35AM)
1. Sell my body parts if I want to?
People donate body parts all the time. I carry an organ donars card myself.

2. Sell my kid if I want to? (Why can't someone pay me to have a baby for them?)
Surrogates get paid for having a baby for other people right now.

3. If I want to euthanize, why do I have to prove I'm dying?

You don't. Suicide is a pretty common occurance.

4. Why only legalize marijuana? Why not any drug I want to take?

Many people think that all drugs should legalized and controlled, taking the profit margin out of organized crime. Why not. It will happen eventually.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 10:41AM)
I definitely won't happen that "all drugs" will be legalized.
Message: Posted by: HudsonView (Nov 4, 2014 11:08AM)
When I think of all the things that "definitely won't happen": gay marriage, marijuana legalized, African American President.....
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 11:12AM)
Marijuana is illegal in all 50 states, but your point is well-taken. It's more than a quantum leap from any of those to legal PCP, though.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 4, 2014 12:56PM)
Whatever tops the bill will.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 02:27PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, rockwall wrote:


How many greedy kids will browbeat their elderly parent to make this 'decision' so that they can finally get their money on the inheritance? Or maybe just not have to take care of the elderly parent anymore? [/quote]

Again, this thread has nothing to do with euthanasia for the elderly. It's about a 29 year old courageous woman who chose to end her life on her own terms.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 02:29PM)
[quote]On Nov 3, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I wouldn't count on that, Bob.

See her "new" video that says, "In April she was given six months or less left to live."

http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2014/10/brittany-maynard-death-date

She "died with dignity" on Nov. 1, is that correct? [/quote]

Correct. With a good deal of it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 02:33PM)
Yes, but I think the point is that Nov. 1 is more than six months after April; therefore, the doctors were wrong.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 4, 2014 03:41PM)
“The new face of euthanasia.”

“The new face” means a new person presenting an established product in an advertising campaign.

“euthanasia” means the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person.

Means this new person is in an advertising campaign presenting the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person.

The new face of euthanasia is selling is Euthanasia.

The average age for Euthanasia is 70 yeas of age.

Thus the Elderly are the target of the Euthanasia which the New Face of euthanasia is advertising .
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 03:49PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Yes, but I think the point is that Nov. 1 is more than six months after April; therefore, the doctors were wrong. [/quote]

Extremely close though, apparently. She was starting to suffer serious seizures and other signs the the end was drawing nigh.

But I don't understand the point of nitpicking or otherwise criticizing this brave young woman's choice to end her life on her own terms.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 4, 2014 03:51PM)
The average age for euthanasia might drop in time: Belgian for instance, they have recently brought in a law on euthanasia for children, with no age limit and it is the first in world to so.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 04:04PM)
Again, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. You're just derailing the topic.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 4, 2014 04:06PM)
Nazi Euthanasia: In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Lest we forget.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 04:56PM)
I will daresay that seizures do not have to be considered a sign the end is very near. She was dignified, but pressured and certainly fearful, I'll daresay that, too. And I'll also daresay I think tommy is much closer to the mark, if not on bullseye altogether, than the general population would like to believe. And, Bob, as I mentioned above, as someone who has participated in euthanasia, this fits the category, certainly. Could she get those pills without the script? A doctor don't have to administer the drug, trust me, the patient ends up just as dead. I speak from experience in this, you can count on it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 06:20PM)
I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one, Laurie. I believe the Brittany Maynard had the absolute right to determine the way and manner from which she would exit this life.

She was not co-erced. It was HER choice based on her own experience of the pain she was suffering and the diagnosis she faced.

I applaud her for her determination to take control of her own life and death.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 06:27PM)
Serious discrepancies between Brittany's case and this:

“'Terminal disease' is defined as 'an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.' Then, the physician must ensure that the patient is making an informed decision by providing the patient with various information, including informing the patient of alternatives to death, such as hospice care and pain control."

http://campbelllawobserver.com/2014/10/dying-for-control-brittany-maynards-fight-for-a-physician-assisted-death/

See that? No airtime for healing or the fact that people do go into complete remission from "terminal disease". And how about the six months? There's no "close to six months" qualifier in that clause, Bob. And I think any reasonable medical practitioner can see Brittany's "terminal disease" did not produce death within six months.

Bob, did I say she didn't have the right? Take another look at what I've actually said.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 06:36PM)
If you're not saying, or implying, that she didn't have the right, what ARE you saying? That she should have been prevented by law from ending her own life?

I really am not clear on your position. Are you saying that the medical professionals should not have been allowed to tell her that her condition was terminal and that there was no procedure that could save her?

What are you saying she SHOULD have done?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 06:43PM)
Are you getting mad at me, here, Bob? I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm not in the practice of doing that. I thought you knew me a little better than that. I'm only asking people to look closely at what's happened, that's all. Have you read the medical article I posted here earlier?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 06:51PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Serious discrepancies between Brittany's case and this:

“'Terminal disease' is defined as 'an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.' Then, the physician must ensure that the patient is making an informed decision by providing the patient with various information, including informing the patient of alternatives to death, such as hospice care and pain control."

http://campbelllawobserver.com/2014/10/dying-for-control-brittany-maynards-fight-for-a-physician-assisted-death/

See that? No airtime for healing or the fact that people do go into complete remission from "terminal disease". And how about the six months? There's no "close to six months" qualifier in that clause, Bob. And I think any reasonable medical practitioner can see Brittany's "terminal disease" did not produce death within six months.

Bob, did I say she didn't have the right? Take another look at what I've actually said. [/quote]

The gap of more than six months between April and November isn't the basis of any discrepancy, because:

1) The fact at she lived beyond six months doesn't demonstrate that it wasn't within reasonable medical judgment that she had six months to live. Beliefs don't have to be infallible to be reasonable. And

2) The six months in the law is from the time of the written request, not the diagnosis. She made her written request after April - less than six months before November 1.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 06:55PM)
Lobo, but she took the prescription after the six months. ie. she wasn't dead and she still had the script. That doesn't fit. We're talking life and death here, close doesn't count, I think. Belief? I thought it said "reasonable medical judgement". What do you think the intent of that clause is if the "six months" doesn't count? Why do people keep getting that false prognosis?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 07:02PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Are you getting mad at me, here, Bob? I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm not in the practice of doing that. I thought you knew me a little better than that. I'm only asking people to look closely at what's happened, that's all. Have you read the medical article I posted here earlier? [/quote]


No. Not getting made at you at all. (I don't get mad over simple discussions.) I just don't understand what your position is. That's why I asked all those questions.

And, yes, I did read those articles. My position and feelings in the matter remain unchanged.

I believe that Brittany Maynard was fully informed of all medical options and made a personal choice based on her own judgment.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 07:03PM)
It's my understanding that in April, when she was told she had six months to live, she was still in California. She decided to move, moved, established residency, etc. before she made her request and got the prescription. So she didn't have the prescription for six months, and when she made the written request, that's when the determination has to be made about having a terminal illness; at THAT time, she might very well have had less than six months.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 07:07PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
2) The six months in the law is from the time of the written request, not the diagnosis. She made her written request after April - less than six months before November 1. [/quote]

O.k. I thought maybe there's an expiry on the prescription. Has anyone said when she made her written request, specifically?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 07:09PM)
So if she died six months and one day or even eight or nine months after the prognosis, would that render the prognosis unreasonable?

Obviously not. No one can predict an exact day of death. (Except a judge, a governor or a hit man)

There appears to be no doubt, though, that her diagnosis was terminal and that her death, if allowed to occur naturally, would have been preceded by great pain and suffering for both her and her family- something she chose to avoid.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 07:13PM)
I think there's at least a little doubt, Bob. If one survives years or a decade or more longer, or with complete remission, does that make the prognosis unreasonable? If so, certainly, in multiple instances the prognosis has been unreasonable.

Considering the "experts" who've been treating this disease for decades are seeing "emerging survivorship" as a qualifier of a new era in this disease, there is doubt about Brittany's prognosis. The diagnosis is one thing, the actual course of condition, another.
The diagnosis was "terminal". The "natural" course of her disease is moot, now. That doesn't equate to certainty it would have been fatal. That just didn't happen.

I think this is more than a "simple" discussion.

Another part of my point in this has been a counterpoint to your statement that this has nothing to do with euthanasia. Do you feel a need to make a distinction? Why? Again, I'll say I think this certainly qualified as euthanasia.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 07:30PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
2) The six months in the law is from the time of the written request, not the diagnosis. She made her written request after April - less than six months before November 1. [/quote]

O.k. I thought maybe there's an expiry on the prescription. Has anyone said when she made her written request, specifically? [/quote]

I haven't seen that, but I did read a first person narrative of the events from her that suggested that it was probably in the summer. Six got the "six months" diagnosis in April, while living in CA, and a number of things had to be done before she made her written request.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 07:34PM)
Yes, as you've said, and the article above states, she had to move to Oregon, etc. I understand. Thankyou. I wonder about these prescriptions. Some have gone unfilled. And I believe they're generally, if not exclusively, for controlled substances. Just curious about the details on them.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 07:38PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

No one can predict an exact day of death. (Except a judge, a governor or a hit man)

[/quote]

And Brittany Maynard.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 08:35PM)
I understand your point of view completely, Laurie. And, yes, I agree this is an example of voluntary euthanasia. My objection to tommy was that he seemed to be trying to equate this with some kind of international plot to endorse euthanasia for the elderly as a cost saving measure.

I also agree that the argument is far from simple.

My question for you, though, is- If you were in a position to decide FOR her, would you have over-ruled her decision to die? (I honestly don't think you would have.)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 08:59PM)
Bob if you really understood my point of view completely, I think you'd stop asking what I would decide FOR her, indeed.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 09:11PM)
I'm not trying to argue with you but I obviously don't understand your point of view. You seem to think she made the wrong decision because you believe there is always the possibility of a spontaneous remission or a miraculous recovery.

Are you saying that in cases like this, assisted suicide should not be legal? Or, are you just saying that if you were in the same position you would not have made the same decision? If the latter, that is understandable as it would reflect your complete freedom of choice. The same freedom Brittany exercised.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2014 10:31PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, rockwall wrote:


How many greedy kids will browbeat their elderly parent to make this 'decision' so that they can finally get their money on the inheritance? Or maybe just not have to take care of the elderly parent anymore? [/quote]

Again, this thread has nothing to do with euthanasia for the elderly. It's about a 29 year old courageous woman who chose to end her life on her own terms. [/quote]

What is different between a 29 year old 'courageous' woman choosing to end her life and an 85 year old 'courageous' woman choosing to end her life?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2014 10:32PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, HudsonView wrote:
1. Sell my body parts if I want to?
People donate body parts all the time. I carry an organ donars card myself.

2. Sell my kid if I want to? (Why can't someone pay me to have a baby for them?)
Surrogates get paid for having a baby for other people right now.

3. If I want to euthanize, why do I have to prove I'm dying?

You don't. Suicide is a pretty common occurance.

4. Why only legalize marijuana? Why not any drug I want to take?

Many people think that all drugs should legalized and controlled, taking the profit margin out of organized crime. Why not. It will happen eventually. [/quote]


Comprehension is not your strong suit is it?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 10:41PM)
Bob, you're the only one trying to suggest I'm imposing on Brittany. Or attempting to get me to do so. If I was at all interested in such a notion, I'd have consulted her long before this. No doubt. And there are people here who know that's true.

She made a choice. That's it. She made a choice. I seem to think this I seem to think that.

I think she made a choice and the details around it are significant to us all. That's it. I have a point of reference, and you have a point of reference and so does everyone else... I've seen things that indicate tommy's done his homework... I'm surprised you disagree... I don't give a damm about society's "law"... I'm surprised you keep asking what I think should and should not be "legal"... I really thought I'd made myself clear enough the last while on that sort of thing... all of this is information we all can use... no more... no less...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 11:08PM)
I apologize, Laurie, for giving you the impression that I'm trying to make you commit to something.

But, honestly, I still don't know what your views are on the Brittany Maynard case.

And I don't understand why you're arguing with mine.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 11:10PM)
I'm not arguing. I think that's the problem here. You're looking for an argument. Is counterpoint an argument, or the other side of the same coin?

Why would you think I'd be interested in taking Brittany's freedom from her when I've opposed such a thing from the top of this thread? Can't you see my concern is the same as yours?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 11:16PM)
No, I'm not looking for an argument at all. Just discussion I was just trying to figure out your position regarding death with dignity and physician assisted suicide laws.

And I still fail to see what this case has to do with tommy's attempt to derail the thread into a discussion of euthanizing the elderly as a cost saving measure. I don't consider conspiracy theories like that to be "well researched."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2014 11:27PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I'm not arguing. I think that's the problem here. You're looking for an argument. Is counterpoint an argument, or the other side of the same coin?

Why would you think I'd be interested in taking Brittany's freedom from her when I've opposed such a thing from the top of this thread? Can't you see my concern is the same as yours? [/quote]

Perhaps because you've seemed to agree with Tommy, who thinks that 1) it should be illegal, and 2) the right to die movement is driven by the desire to kill off huge numbers of people for financial reasons. And because you seem focused on the potential issues in an Oregon case (though, granted, the details are obviously very important), while most of the people who agree with Bob and me are probably more concerned with the 45 states that don't recognize the right at all.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 4, 2014 11:39PM)
Apples, oranges.
I don't want to speak for laurie, but I think our feelings are similar here:
The legal question is the less interesting one. There are other things to talk about.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 4, 2014 11:42PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, landmark wrote:
Apples, oranges.
I don't want to speak for laurie, but I think our feelings are similar here:
The legal question is the less interesting one. There are other things to talk about. [/quote]

So let's talk about them. Care to give us a few questions that you feel we should talk about on this issue? (I'll give my honest opinions. And I'm sure others will as well.)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 4, 2014 11:46PM)
Bob, my Dad was 89 last year and spent a fair amount of time in hospital. I see quite plainly tommy's concern and I spoke to a man from India today who's my mother's age (71) and he mentioned it himself. He says a lot of people go back to India if they have a serious medical condition because they're afraid to get treated here. I understand. Maybe "free" health care has something to do with it.

http://todaysgeriatricmedicine.com/archive/winter08p16.shtml

"They’re all emblematic of ageism, a complex phenomenon carrying a continuing burden of social and political prejudice that has real costs to the health, well-being, and longevity of thousands of older adults."

"Yet any overview of the current state of elder healthcare resounds with disturbing data. For example, based on the ILC’s 2006 report on ageism in America, 90% of older Americans never receive routine screening tests for bone density, colon or prostate cancer, or glaucoma—all conditions that increase with age. Sixty percent of older adults don’t receive routine preventive health services, including screening for high blood pressure or cholesterol. And 35% of doctors continue to believe, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that elevated blood pressure is a 'normal' part of aging."

"Medical research mirrors this discrimination."

And I saw this myself last year when my sister and I were in the ER with him at 1 a.m. on a Saturday night:

"A survey conducted at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine revealed that 80% of medical students would aggressively treat pneumonia in a girl aged 10, while only 56% would do the same for a woman aged 85."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 12:10AM)
Laurie-

I agree with you completely regarding the elderly and ageism and everything you wrote in your last post. I just think those are separate (though very important) issues from those raised in the Brittany Maynard case.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 5, 2014 12:11AM)
They're issues of freedom, I believe. That doctor was ready to send my Dad to the morgue and somehow thought my sister and I would be on board with that.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 12:13AM)
Yes they are, but ageism and poor medical care for the elderly were not issues with Brittany Maynard. The commonality is the issue of individual rights.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 5, 2014 12:17AM)
Was she free is the issue, I believe.
That doctor was ready to send my Dad to the morgue and somehow thought my sister and I would be on board with that. Tracey didn't pick up on the innuendo so I had to ask the doctor to be a little more outright in what she was seeking consent for. Tracey was stunned this doctor tried to sneak it right past her. I said you treat him like he's 20 years old. I was some angry. The doctor thought I was upset with Tracey somehow. Clueless. And this is going on everyday. He's had a good life... let's just send him on his way, that's why you're here at 1 a.m. on a Saturday night, of course, yes? Doctors can quite quickly get used to getting paid to prescribe death. Much less work involved, guaranteed outcome, quick turnover, increased profit margin, ...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 12:25AM)
That's a horrible situation to be in and I sympathize with you, having been there myself with my grandfather.

In the Maynard case, though, no one was seeking consent from guardians or relatives. I believe that she fully made up her own mind based on the medical evidence and her own subjective feelings about the state of her health and her prospects of recovery.

If she was misled by doctors that would be outrageous and certainly malpractice. It would definitely raise questions as to whether she could make a truly free decision if it was based on an erroneous prognosis.

But I don't see anything to indicate that was the case. And neither, apparently, did her family or others close to her.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 5, 2014 12:29AM)
She also spent months doing her own research in between the diagnoses and her decision.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 12:42AM)
Yes. I believe that her decision was exceptionally well-informed. Of course, if it was based on a faulty diagnosis or prognosis that would be a different story. But I don't see any evidence that it was.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 01:11AM)
I fully support people making their own decisions about their own lives. I do not assume that those decisions are "correct" or "brave" if I am not intimately familiar with the person making the decision.

Brittany's choice--which should indeed have been her own to make--was not necessarily a choice that we automatically ought to applaud. Maybe we should applaud it, but not automatically. What in fact did Britannny consider suffering, for example? Could it be that in part she chose to avoided the bloated, ugly, and distorted body that chemo would give her? And does avoiding ugliness send a message we ought to applaud? What about women who fear living without breasts? What about colostomy bags? What about wheelchairs, crutches, prosthetics, wigs, false teeth?

My point is that if Brittany wished to quietly kill herself (her legal and ethical right to choose for herself), then perhaps I could applaud her actions. But by making a public statement, she raises questions about whether the decision was a good one. In other words, she raises the question of whether she was a role model.

I'm not saying she isn't. I'm saying that I find it problematic to simply accept it as so. EVEN IF we think we know the facts of the case, we do not.

Last night I played music with friend who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer 2 1/2 years ago. Next Tuesday he is having his chemo port removed, having been declared cancer free. I have two sisters with cancer, both still very much alive. Syndi was diagnosed with stage four Ovarian cancer three years ago. All but one doctor told her to get her effects in order. The one doctor who didn't tell her to plan for death bombed her with nine months of chemo and gave her a full year of remission--time she has used to watch her children get married, to spend two Christmases with me, and to soak a tiny bit more out of life than the other doctors would have given her. Sheryl had a lobe of her lung removed a year ago to get rid of a carcinoid tumor. Last week her one-year checkup revealed another suspicious growth which will be examined closely sometime today.

These things are personal, private, and complicated. The decisions involved should also remain personal, private, and complicated. Once one becomes an advocate and uploads videos to YouTube and issues press releases, they at the very minimum are offering up their actions as if they are laudable. But do not--we CANNOT--know the real truth of her motivations, and we do not--we CANNOT--know whether her decision is one that we ought to recommend others take. I do not think Hans would make it--he didn't. I do not think Syndi would make it--she didn't. I do not think Sheryl would make it--she didn't.

I fully support Brittany's choice being a legal a personal one. I do not wish to call her "brave" or "courageous". I do not know that she was.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 01:23AM)
Who can really say in an ultimate sense? The fact remains that she made the decision herself. I don't believe that it was made for her by others. Those are the cases that I think raise more serious issues.

And I do believe that Brittany's decision illustrated that she did have the courage of her convictions.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 01:49AM)
I don't admire having the courage of one's convictions unless those convictions are admirable. Perhaps hers were, and perhaps hers weren't.

I would prefer that we human beings have a conviction that life is beautiful and worth preserving at great cost. What cost? I suppose when it is ones own life, one should have the right to answer that question. When one publicizes their answer, we as a society have a right to question it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 5, 2014 02:30AM)
IMO, it's kind of problematic to "fully support" her choice being a legal one while thinking that it should "remain private." Perhaps when that choice is widely recognized, that won't be the case. But while (American) society accepts (legally) such choices in more than 10% of the states those who would like to see them legally permitted need articulate spokespeople willing to share their experiences.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 02:46AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
IMO, it's kind of problematic to "fully support" her choice being a legal one while thinking that it should "remain private." [/quote]

I don't see it as problematic at all. The law supports the making of private choices. That's exactly what happened here.

What I was trying to suggest is that it is problematic to publicize a choice particular choice without bringing an additional question into the mix of not only whether the choice should have been hers, but whether the choice was a good one. The former I do not doubt. The latter is none of my business, and shouldn't be.

[quote]
Perhaps when that choice is widely recognized, that won't be the case. But while (American) society accepts (legally) such choices in more than 10% of the states those
who would like to see them legally permitted need articulate spokespeople willing to share their experiences. [/quote]

I would agree with that statement.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 5, 2014 03:09AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, stoneunhinged wrote:
The law supports the making of private choices.[/quote]

...in five states out of 50.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 04:09AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, stoneunhinged wrote:
The law supports the making of private choices.[/quote]

...in five states out of 50. [/quote]

On this matter, that is true.

(But Lobo, you love to point out that Marijuana is illegal in all fifty states--by which you mean illegal according to federal law. I myself was claiming that the right to privacy--you know, shadows and penumbras and all that--is a federal one. More importantly (remember I'm a philosopher and not a lawyer), I think the right to privacy--and with it, the right to make private decisions about things like sexuality, procreation, and ending ones life--is a moral right, and not just a legal one. But I digress.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 5, 2014 04:20AM)
If a moral right is not a legal right, then there's an injustice, and injustices tend to need the public eye shined on them to change. Ms. Maynard's final days probably would have been easier had she kept her decision private, but instead, she spent some of her limited remaining time on earth sharing her story, educating the public, and fostering empathy in many people who haven't had a personal connection to the issue. Personally, I'd have been sorely tempted to hoard time with my family and friends, eat pizza, and play cards. Her choice, OTOH, may very well speed up the process by which a moral right becomes a legal one. So whether or not her choice was "correct," I find it laudable.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 04:27AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a moral right is not a legal right, then there's an injustice, and injustices tend to need the public eye shined on them to change. Ms. Maynard's final days probably would have been easier had she kept her decision private, but instead, she spent some of her limited remaining time on earth sharing her story, educating the public, and fostering empathy in many people who haven't had a personal connection to the issue. Personally, I'd have been sorely tempted to hoard time with my family and friends, eat pizza, and play cards. Her choice, OTOH, may very well speed up the process by which a moral right becomes a legal one. So whether or not her choice was "correct," I find it laudable. [/quote]

I would agree with your statement in its entirety.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 06:33AM)
Jeff- I don't understand. You've just agreed "in its entirely" with Lobo's statement that whether or not Ms. Maynard's choice was correct, he finds it laudable.

Earlier, though, you wrote "I don't admire having the courage of one's convictions unless those convictions are admirable. [b]Perhaps hers were, and perhaps hers weren't."[/b]

Unless you disagree that "laudable" and "admirable" are synonyms*, your statement that her convictions were, perhaps, not laudable, seems to conflict with your "complete" agreement with Lobo.

So, just to be clear, do you agree that her decision was laudable?

(I, obviously, do agree that it was.)
______________________________________________________________

* laud·a·ble
ˈlôdəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: laudable

(of an action, idea, or goal) deserving praise and commendation.
"laudable though the aim might be, the results have been criticized"
synonyms: praiseworthy, commendable, admirable, meritorious, worthy, deserving, creditable, estimable
"thanked for their laudable contributions of time and talent"
antonyms: shameful
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 06:56AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Jeff- I don't understand. You've just agreed "in its entirely" with Lobo's statement that whether or not Ms. Maynard's choice was correct, he finds it laudable.



So, just to be clear, do you agree that her decision was laudable?

[/quote]

I find myself in the same position as Laurie, thinking I'm being clear when I'm apparently not being clear.

I think that her public decision was laudable. I do not know whether her private decision was laudable.

It seems to me that it is often the case that we celebrate people for making public statements for good causes, yet we do not know if their motivations were worth celebration.

I have also made it clear that this is not entirely abstract to me: both of my sisters have cancer, one of whom will probably die a relatively excruciating death in the near future. If I seem to contradict myself, it is because this involves more than legal or political positioning, and I am trying to express ideas which have an fairly large emotional impact on me.

And Bob, don't insult me by posting definitions. As you probably know, I have the entire Oxford English Dictionary at my fingertips should I misunderstand a word. :) Should I post definitions of "motivation" and "conviction" to make my point clearer?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 07:04AM)
Sorry, Jeff. That wasn't at all intended to be an insult- simply to support my contention that "laudable" and "admirable" are indeed synonyms, in case that was questioned by anyone else reading my post. (I had to double check for myself before I posted my message, so I looked it up just to be sure.)

But I'd rather not discuss the issue further if it is personally upsetting to you or others.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 07:11AM)
Sorry, but I'm a bit frustrated that no one seems to get my distinction between actions and motives.

Please be clear that I am not criticizing Brittany in any way. I am participating in a discussion, and in the development of the discussion I have made a digression regarding questions of what is public and private and where advocacy and personal motivations can get blurry. That's all.

I agree with Lobo that her public statement of taking charge with regard to her own death was a laudable one. I see no contradiction in pointing out that her private motivation for doing so might have been less than what I would wish my own sister to have.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 07:14AM)
And again, I apologize if my posts have upset you or if you feel I insulted you. Neither was my intention.

I see no reason to question her motives because I've seen no evidence to suggest they were any different from those she expressed publicly.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 5, 2014 08:00AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I'm not arguing. I think that's the problem here. You're looking for an argument. Is counterpoint an argument, or the other side of the same coin?

Why would you think I'd be interested in taking Brittany's freedom from her when I've opposed such a thing from the top of this thread? Can't you see my concern is the same as yours? [/quote]

Perhaps because you've seemed to agree with Tommy, who thinks that 1) it should be illegal, and 2) the right to die movement is driven by the desire to kill off huge numbers of people for financial reasons. And because you seem focused on the potential issues in an Oregon case (though, granted, the details are obviously very important), while most of the people who agree with Bob and me are probably more concerned with the 45 states that don't recognize the right at all. [/quote]

No.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 5, 2014 08:38AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, landmark wrote:
Apples, oranges.
I don't want to speak for laurie, but I think our feelings are similar here:
The legal question is the less interesting one. There are other things to talk about. [/quote]

So let's talk about them. Care to give us a few questions that you feel we should talk about on this issue? (I'll give my honest opinions. And I'm sure others will as well.) [/quote]

Thanks.
Here are a few to start.
At what point (if any) would you make the choice to kill yourself?
At what point (if any) would you support loved ones killing themselves?
What is the range of motives that people have for killing themselves?
Is killing oneself an act of courage or an act of cowardice? Or is that a loaded bifurcation?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 09:05AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I see no reason to question her motives because I've seen no evidence to suggest they were any different from those she expressed publicly. [/quote]

Neither have I.

This whole conversation is a bit too abstract, I suppose. I guess the problem is that I admire her firmness and political engagement, but also mourn the loss of a human being who made a fateful and final decision that should not necessarily be imitated. The point is a bit too subtle (as many of my points are) and has perhaps gotten lost in translation.

For me the question is not simply about dealing with death, but about dealing with cancer. I'm not wise, and don't pretend to be. But all of our discussion regarding the right to dignity in death has brushed aside any discussion about the dignity of dealing with cancer. A young woman's right to choose to avoid that particular indignity says something (to me, at least) about what dignity means for those who make a different decision.

But I am not offended, Bob. That's why I put a smiley after the Oxford English Dictionary comment. Perhaps it was before your heavy involvement here in the Not Very Magical forum, but I occasionally used to brag that one of the percs of my job is that the library downstairs has two copies of the OED, and my university Internet account gives me free access to the entire online OED. I'm a very wealthy man. At least when it comes to dictionaries.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 5, 2014 09:19AM)
For all those here that support and find laudable and brave her decision to end her life, do you feel the same about Robin Williams? Do you believe his decision was laudable and brave and deserves support? If so, I don't recall reading those sentiments on his RIP topic.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 5, 2014 09:23AM)
What I'm going to say here is probably completely unfair. I have no way of knowing if it is true. But I do want to express a thought that was running through my mind when I viewed Britanny's video.

She seemed like such a good, lively interesting adventurous person in love with danger and experience. I am wondering if consciously or unconsciously she considered killing herself as her final dangerous adventure.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 5, 2014 10:30AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, rockwall wrote:
For all those here that support and find laudable and brave her decision to end her life, do you feel the same about Robin Williams? Do you believe his decision was laudable and brave and deserves support? If so, I don't recall reading those sentiments on his RIP topic. [/quote]

I think it's a good question and a relevant one. I expect that many will disagree with me on that, which is why I'm posting this despite the fact that I'm not going to address it out of past observation that (pure)suicide-related topics tend to hit too many people too personally for me to feel comfortable participating in a discussion.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 5, 2014 11:42AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, rockwall wrote:
For all those here that support and find laudable and brave her decision to end her life, do you feel the same about Robin Williams? Do you believe his decision was laudable and brave and deserves support? If so, I don't recall reading those sentiments on his RIP topic. [/quote]

This question gets to the heart of what concerns me.

The big difference is that Robin did not put up videos or make himself an advocate of killing onesself. He just did it.

Please, I repeat: I am not critizing Brittany. But her actions and advocacy have raised issues worth discussing.

Advocating suicide is understandably controversial. Are the pains of depression somehow lesser than the pains of cancer?
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Nov 5, 2014 12:03PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, rockwall wrote:
For all those here that support and find laudable and brave her decision to end her life, do you feel the same about Robin Williams? Do you believe his decision was laudable and brave and deserves support? If so, I don't recall reading those sentiments on his RIP topic. [/quote]

Yes I do.
Yes.
Does it have to be in print to be real?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 12:25PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, rockwall wrote:
For all those here that support and find laudable and brave her decision to end her life, do you feel the same about Robin Williams? Do you believe his decision was laudable and brave and deserves support? If so, I don't recall reading those sentiments on his RIP topic. [/quote]

Completely different situations. Robin Williams was not facing a medical prognosis of a progressively painful death spiral within six months. Nor did he ever publicly address his rationale behind what appeared to be a spontaneous act born of acute depression.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 12:47PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, landmark wrote:

At what point (if any) would you make the choice to kill yourself?
At what point (if any) would you support loved ones killing themselves?
What is the range of motives that people have for killing themselves?
Is killing oneself an act of courage or an act of cowardice? Or is that a loaded bifurcation? [/quote]

My personal answers, in order.

When I had a rational reason, supported by clear and convincing medical evidence, to believe that a slow, painful, death was unavoidable and imminent. I would also consider the effects, both financial and emotional, that my prolonged suffering and deterioration would have on my family and loved ones.

When I believed that the circumstances for them were the same as in my previous answer, and that they made the decision with a sound mind and based on solid evidence that impending death was unavoidable and that the only alternatives were death with dignity or a slow and painful deterioration accompanied by a savagely progressive and, finally, complete loss of physical and mental capacity.

Don't know. I'm sure the range of motives covers a broad spectrum, from deluded and or irrational reasons based on a mental disease or defect, to a fully rational conclusion that that a relatively painless death is a preferable outcome in a hopeless and painfully progressive terminal disease.

False dichotomy. It is not an either/or situation. Killing oneself can also be a completely irrational act that is neither brave nor cowardly.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 5, 2014 04:36PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I've worked as a professional in a vet clinic and assisted far too many unnecessary euthanasias.[/quote]
And at the other extreme, I've seen many animals who lead miserable lives, but whose owners cling to them desperately when they should be ending the suffering. We were at a barn that had a beautiful Dutch Warmblood horse (Mattie) who foundered (essentially, lost all her hooves). She was clearly in agony, could barely stand at times, and when she could, could barely move. Yet her owner kept her for another year before she finally allowed her relief from her suffering. It was heart-wrenching to watch.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 5, 2014 04:42PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2014, rockwall wrote:
For all those here that support and find laudable and brave her decision to end her life, do you feel the same about Robin Williams? Do you believe his decision was laudable and brave and deserves support? If so, I don't recall reading those sentiments on his RIP topic. [/quote]

Completely different situations. Robin Williams was not facing a medical prognosis of a progressively painful death spiral within six months. Nor did he ever publicly address his rationale behind what appeared to be a spontaneous act born of acute depression. [/quote]

What makes you think it was spontaneous? From what I've read, it's something he had contemplated for a long time.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2014 07:34PM)
That may or may not be, rockwall. I simply don't know, because unlike Ms Maynard, Robin Williams gave no prior public explanation of what he was contemplating or why.

That's why it's really impossible to compare their cases. But, as far as I know, Williams was not suffering from a terminal disease and given only six months to live.

William's case seems to have involved severe depression from what I've read. But depression is a treatable condition. There is no denying, though, that it is a major cause of suicide. I neither applaud nor condemn Mr. Williams' decision. I simply accept that it was a decision he chose to make.

I cannot, and would not, judge. Nor would I use Williams' death as an example in support of death with dignity laws.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 12:07AM)
Jeff, you make very clear sense to me, FWIW. I wonder how accurate this article is:

http://www.people.com/article/Brittany-Mayard-death-medical-journey

I wonder, too, if there are any plans to confirm her diagnosis of stage 4 glioblastoma at this point.
Message: Posted by: reese (Nov 6, 2014 12:13AM)
[quote]On Nov 2, 2014, tommy wrote:
I guess they are giving this stuff top billing because they are looking for volunteers. [/quote] Perhaps the most disgusting thing I've ever read on the Café.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 6, 2014 01:52AM)
Things get a bit muddied when we conflate voluntary euthanasia, as in Britanny's case, with involuntary euthanasia, as in the case of unwanted animals, or in cases where family members must decide FOR a patient who is [i]non compos mentis[/i] or otherwise unable to express their own desires and preferences.

The real issue in the Maynard case, though, is really a legal one, given that most states do not allow physician assisted suicide.And that issue is:

Should a mentally and legally competent adult, who has been diagnosed by more than one physician as having a terminal and progressively debilitating and painful disease, and who fully understands the nature of his or her medical condition, have the right, under state and federal laws, to seek physician assisted suicide in order to avoid extreme pain and suffering that would, based on clear and convincing evidence, and to a reasonable medical certainty, result from allowing the disease to naturally reach its terminal conclusion within a time period of less than one year from the date of diagnosis?

If all of those conditions are present, my personal opinion is "Yes."

(Sorry if that sound verbose or overly legalistic, but I had to carefully lay out all of the conditions precedent that I believe should be present to legally and morally allow physician assisted suicide.)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 02:04AM)
Are you telling me, perchance, that my Dad is incompetent, Bob? He's perfectly capable of consenting or not, the doctor didn't give a damm about that. Really doesn't concern them at all. The arrogance of the medical system and the disposability of the elderly has a lot of very reasonable people very concerned these days. The connection to Britanny is in whether she faced a similar pressure. Reading her statements, there's a lot of mention of fear. S2000 summed it up pretty well, some decide what one should do. And there's tons of pressure these days to focus negatively. Who are you, S2000, to tell us what another should have done with their horse? That's not your call to make. And don't tell me the horse wanted to die. Animals are pretty good at dying when they're ready. And they're pretty good at staying alive and marching on while they can, too. Even if some find it "heartwrenching" to watch.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 6, 2014 02:17AM)
No, Laurie, not at all. Where did I say or imply ANYTHING about your Dad's competence?

I've simply tried to lay out my personal views as precisely as possible. Since your father is competent to make his own decisions, those decisions should be his alone. To over-ride the decision of a competent person regarding the choice of his own life or death is as repugnant to me as it is to you.

And I'm very sorry to hear that you have to go through this. In the two days following my girlfriend's open heart surgery last Friday, I was in great fear for her life after it was discovered that her heart was in far worse shape than was initially thought. Fortunately, and by the grace of God, everything turned out well. But having lost my wife five nine years ago in the same hospital I was very apprehensive.

(The only reason I mention my personal situation is to convey to you that I don't take death lightly. But I do believe strongly in an individual's sovereignty over his or her own body in matters of life and death.)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 02:20AM)
"as in the case of unwanted animals, or in cases where family members must decide FOR a patient who is non compos mentis or otherwise unable to express their own desires and preferences."
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2014 02:23AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Who are you, S2000, to tell us what another should have done with their horse?[/quote]
I'm the same (sort of) person who decided that many euthanizations of pets were unnecessary.

I gave you my opinion, as you gave us yours.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 02:26AM)
I may have said they were unnecessary. I didn't say the owners shouldn't have euthanized them. Jeff, does that make sense?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2014 02:28AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
And don't tell me the horse wanted to die.[/quote]
As you have argued so strenuously that nobody here put words in your mouth, I'd ask you for the same consideration.

Nothing I've ever written here has expressed or implied that I think Mattie (or any other horse, or other animal) wants to die, or is, if left to its own devices, unable to die at the proper time.

I know how much Mattie [b][i]was not[/i][/b] left to her own devices; I saw it for months. You, on the other hand, do not. Without that knowledge, please don't judge my opinion.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2014 02:29AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I may have said they were unnecessary.[/quote]
It isn't a question of whether you may have or not; in fact, you did.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 02:31AM)
Of course I did. What do you have to say about the second part? I didn't say the owners should have chosen differently.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 6, 2014 03:16AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
"as in the case of unwanted animals, or in cases where family members must decide FOR a patient who is non compos mentis or otherwise unable to express their own desires and preferences." [/quote]

That's clearly just an example I gave of INVOLUNTARY euthanasia, which I have serious problems with.

The issue in the Maynard case is VOLUNTARY decisions made by competent adults. And that's ALL I have expressed an opinion on. (As I said, the issue is muddied when it is conflated with the issues surrounding involuntary euthanasia.)

Please don't read my words out of context. Involuntary euthanasia exists. You oppose it. I have serious problems with it. I respect your opinion. I can't help it if you don't respect mine, even though it is substantially the same as yours.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 6, 2014 06:08AM)
Things get a bit muddied indeed when people say :

[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Again, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. You're just derailing the topic. [/quote]

Then later say:

[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Things get a bit muddied when we conflate voluntary euthanasia, as in Britanny's case, with involuntary euthanasia, as in the case of unwanted animals, or in cases where family members must decide FOR a patient who is [i]non compos mentis[/i] or otherwise unable to express their own desires and preferences.
[/quote]

There are various types of Euthanasia. So here from the BBC is a little thing which might help define our terms perhaps:

“Euthanasia is the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering.
In most cases euthanasia is carried out because the person who dies asks for it, but there are cases called euthanasia where a person can't make such a request.
“Forms of euthanasia
The different types of euthanasia, some of which may be seen as more or less acceptable depending on your outlook.
Euthanasia comes in several different forms, each of which brings a different set of rights and wrongs.
Active and passive euthanasia

In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient's death. In passive euthanasia they don't directly take the patient's life, they just allow them to die.

This is a morally unsatisfactory distinction, since even though a person doesn't 'actively kill' the patient, they are aware that the result of their inaction will be the death of the patient.

Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act - for example when a person is killed by being given an overdose of pain-killers.

Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission - i.e. when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or withholding treatment:

Withdrawing treatment: for example, switching off a machine that is keeping a person alive, so that they die of their disease.
Withholding treatment: for example, not carrying out surgery that will extend life for a short time.

Traditionally, passive euthanasia is thought of as less bad than active euthanasia. But some people think active euthanasia is morally better.

Read more about the ethics of passive and active euthanasia
Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia occurs at the request of the person who dies.

Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when the person is unconscious or otherwise unable (for example, a very young baby or a person of extremely low intelligence) to make a meaningful choice between living and dying, and an appropriate person takes the decision on their behalf.

Non-voluntary euthanasia also includes cases where the person is a child who is mentally and emotionally able to take the decision, but is not regarded in law as old enough to take such a decision, so someone else must take it on their behalf in the eyes of the law.

Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the person who dies chooses life and is killed anyway. This is usually called murder, but it is possible to imagine cases where the killing would count as being for the benefit of the person who dies.

Read more about the ethics of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia
Indirect euthanasia

This means providing treatment (usually to reduce pain) that has the side effect of speeding the patient's death.

Since the primary intention is not to kill, this is seen by some people (but not all) as morally acceptable.

A justification along these lines is formally called the doctrine of double effect.
Assisted suicide

This usually refers to cases where the person who is going to die needs help to kill themselves and asks for it. It may be something as simple as getting drugs for the person and putting those drugs within their reach.”

-BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/problems.shtml
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2014 07:24AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I may have said they were unnecessary. I didn't say the owners shouldn't have euthanized them. Jeff, does that make sense? [/quote]

Are you saying it's improperly judgmental to say that people shouldn't unnecessarily kill animals?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Nov 6, 2014 07:50AM)
Laurie asked if I think she makes sense, and I think she does--assuming she and I have understood each other.

When she says that she "didn't mean the owners shouldn't have euthanized them", she's saying that she doesn't presume to know the motives or rightness of their decision.

I think we are both loathe to judge--or praise--the decisions of others, but we would prefer people choose life over death.

So Lobo's question is a clever one. Laurie and are are judgmental people who do not want to judge, and it seems to be a contradiction to everyone but us.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 6, 2014 08:34AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, reese wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 2014, tommy wrote:
I guess they are giving this stuff top billing because they are looking for volunteers. [/quote] Perhaps the most disgusting thing I've ever read on the Café. [/quote]

Perhaps you prefer I tell you what you WANT to hear rather than the ugly truth.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 08:40AM)
This has been said to be about freedom of choice.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2014 08:47AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Of course I did. What do you have to say about the second part? I didn't say the owners should have chosen differently.[/quote]
Nor did I suggest that you did.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 08:55AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
even though it is substantially the same as yours. [/quote]

That sounds familiar, Bob
S2000, my point was that you did what I didn't.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2014 09:14AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
even though it is substantially the same as yours.[/quote]
That sounds familiar, Bob
S2000, my point was that you did what I didn't.[/quote]
I understand that.

And I understand that you seem to be condemning me for suggesting that there are times when people should euthanize an animal but don't.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2014 09:40AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, stoneunhinged wrote:
Laurie asked if I think she makes sense, and I think she does--assuming she and I have understood each other.

When she says that she "didn't mean the owners shouldn't have euthanized them", she's saying that she doesn't presume to know the motives or rightness of their decision.

I think we are both loathe to judge--or praise--the decisions of others, but we would prefer people choose life over death.

So Lobo's question is a clever one. Laurie and are are judgmental people who do not want to judge, and it seems to be a contradiction to everyone but us. [/quote]

Our capacity to make - and meta-think about - moral decisions is one of our most important qualities.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 6, 2014 10:06AM)
According to the Vatican your new face is an absurdity and I would not argue with them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/brittany-maynards-decision-to-end-her-life-labelled-reprehensible-by-the-vatican-9840093.html
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2014 11:10AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, tommy wrote:
According to the Vatican your new face is an absurdity and I would not argue with them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/brittany-maynards-decision-to-end-her-life-labelled-reprehensible-by-the-vatican-9840093.html [/quote]

If only they had sent an emissary to explain that God wanted her to die in agony, perhaps she could have had a few more weeks of suffering.
Message: Posted by: Pecan_Creek (Nov 6, 2014 12:13PM)
But because she didn't die in agony, god is now spreading that agony out amongst those of us willing to read this thread.

The law of conservation of agony. Agony can neither be created, destroyed nor avoided. I'ts just converted into someone elses agony.

So be a good christian and internalize your agony, feed it, nurture it. If you do so you are saving others from agony. WWJD?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2014 12:33PM)
One of the joys of omnipotence must be that if you really want someone to live until a particular day, all of the sodium pentothal in the world won't kill that person.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 6, 2014 12:38PM)
Tommy-

You miss my point when you imply I'm was being contradictory when I wrote about different types of euthanasia after writing previously that euthanasia is not the main issue in this case.

The issue is freedom of choice. The euthanasia debate keeps obscuring that.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 6, 2014 09:24PM)
I'm said to disrespect by you, Bob, and now S2000 says I seem to be condemning.

Where does the word "should" fit in freedom of choice?

"Words like *should* and* must* are the same."
http://www.gaiamtv.com/article/ahimsa-yoga-practice-non-violence
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2014 09:42PM)
The word "should" is completely compatible with free choice. Person A makes a free choice, and Person B is free to feel like A should or should not have made the choice. Then Person B makes a free choice about whether or not to vocalize his thoughts on the matter.p
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2014 09:46PM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I'm said to disrespect by you, Bob, and now S2000 says I seem to be condemning.

Where does the word "should" fit in freedom of choice?

"Words like *should* and* must* are the same."
http://www.gaiamtv.com/article/ahimsa-yoga-practice-non-violence [/quote]
Do you believe that free choice ought to have no limits?

I, for one, do not.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 6, 2014 10:27PM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
I'm said to disrespect by you, Bob, and now S2000 says I seem to be condemning.
[/quote]

I never said any such thing.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 7, 2014 12:15AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I respect your opinion. I can't help it if you don't respect mine [/quote]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 7, 2014 11:56AM)
That doesn't mean the same thing as "you're disrespectful." Not showing respect is passive. Being disrespectful is active.

Nor do "should" and "must" mean the same thing.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 7, 2014 12:23PM)
You shouldn't say that.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 7, 2014 12:25PM)
[quote]On Nov 7, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You shouldn't say that. [/quote]

But I must, I must!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 7, 2014 12:44PM)
Bob, Lobo: you guys are [b][i]awesome![/i][/b]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 7, 2014 04:05PM)
The language itself is the key to the con -. Nowadays they call it “Neurolinguistics” and 'psycholinguistics' Perception management and all that stuff. “Dying with Dignity” is a neurolinguistic trickery and part of the “New face of Euthanasia”.. Ie The Voluntary Euthanasia Society changed its name to Dignity in Dying, to improve its public image and help re brand itself as a human rights group calling for free choice on all end-of-life decisions.. The Association for Palliative Medicine accused the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of trying to suggest dignity in terminal illness can only be won by euthanasia. It wrote to the Trade and Industry Secretary to oppose the change.

Beware of those advertising wizards who use the term dying with dignity and say things like:

[quote]On Nov 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Again, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. You're just derailing the topic. [/quote]

Mind you they might just be innocent neurolinguistic tricked muggles who don't know an advertisement for Euthanasia when they see one.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 7, 2014 04:38PM)
That's ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 7, 2014 05:36PM)
My pleasure extraordinarily superficial.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 7, 2014 07:50PM)
[quote]On Nov 7, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That doesn't mean the same thing as "you're disrespectful." Not showing respect is passive. Being disrespectful is active.
[/quote]

That's a fair distinction to make, Bob. So please allow me to adjust by saying that a problem with your premise in the first place is you said I don't respect your opinion, when in fact I do.

As for the should and must and ought, if we're discussing psychological and emotional pressure, as well as imposing one's opinion on another's freedom of choice, I think the point I've posted is quite valid.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 7, 2014 08:14PM)
"Imposing" one's opinion is quite an interesting take.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 7, 2014 08:31PM)
How do you mean, Lobo? "Should" and "ought" both imply duty and obligation. This article might be helpful to our discussion. I'd like to know what others think.

"Ought is your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) believes you should or ought to possess (i.e., a representation of someone's sense of your duty, obligations, or responsibilities).[4]

The ought self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of negative outcomes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-discrepancy_theory

Doctors administering euthanasia each have opinions regarding when it "should" or "ought" to be administered and they convey them to those consenting, whether they use the words "should", "ought", "must", or not. How does that factor here? It's connected to the individual's choice. I know from experience one can feel pressured to make a choice to euthanize. Some do so and regret it. That's a big reason vets get owners to sign on the dotted line before the injection is administered. The owner is left holding the bag, the veterinarian considers it a free choice. Perhaps it was. I suppose it was. But what's significant is the outcome, I think. And no one's standing in your shoes but you. No other person has the knowledge of you that you do. But how many weigh the opinions of doctors that way, ie. as an opinion? How many think the doctor does know you better than you do?

Does one feel pressured to conform to the prognosis accompanying a cancer diagnosis? And/or a picture of "death with dignity"? And what is the doctor's role?

Regarding specifically, and just out of curiosity, "should" and "ought": how many consider statements using those words directed at them to be an imposition?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 7, 2014 09:45PM)
From the link posted above, this seems relevant to Brittany's condition:

"Another domain of self

In 1999 Charles Carver and associates made a new amendment to the theory by adding the domain of feared self.[8] Unlike the self guides proposed by Higgins which imply an actual or desired (better) self, the feared self is a domain that measures what one does not desire to be. In many cases, this may have a different level of influence in terms of priority on the self than previous domains and self-guides. It is human nature to avoid negative affect before approaching positives."

The following is a key point in our discussion, I think:

"The theory does not propose that individuals are aware of the accessibility or availability of their self-discrepancies. However, it is obvious that both the availability and accessibility can influence social information processing automatically and without awareness.[4] Thus, self-discrepancy theory simulates that the available and accessible negative psychological situations embodied in one’s self-discrepancies can be used to provide meaning to events without being aware of either the discrepancies or their impact on processing."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 12:26AM)
[quote]On Nov 7, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That doesn't mean the same thing as "you're disrespectful." Not showing respect is passive. Being disrespectful is active.
[/quote]

That's a fair distinction to make, Bob. So please allow me to adjust by saying that a problem with your premise in the first place is you said I don't respect your opinion, when in fact I do.

As for the should and must and ought, if we're discussing psychological and emotional pressure, as well as imposing one's opinion on another's freedom of choice, I think the point I've posted is quite valid. [/quote]

I see your point. But I think "should" and "ought" are basically the same. They simply connote a recommendation or suggestion. But they are not commands, whereas I see "must" as an order, not a suggestion.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 8, 2014 01:14AM)
Thanks, Bob, but I'm not sure the dictionary agrees with you. Even if it does, technically, I think the self-discrepancies linked to indicate the legitimacy of my concern.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 01:28AM)
Merriam Webster's primary definitions appear to:

[quote]MUST
verbal auxiliary
1
a : be commanded or requested to <you must stop>
b : be urged to : ought by all means to <you must read that book>
2
: be compelled by physical necessity to <one must eat to live> : be required by immediate or future need or purpose to <we must hurry to catch the bus>
3
a : be obliged to : be compelled by social considerations to <I must say you're looking well>
b : be required by law, custom, or moral conscience to <we must obey the rules>...[several secondary meanings follow][/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must

While "ought" and "should" are alternate meanings, the connotation of the word, to me at least, is more in the nature of a command or a requirement. "Ought" and "should," on the other hand, connote opinions or suggestions.

But, yes, your concern is certainly legitimate.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 8, 2014 01:37AM)
Definition of should in English:

modal verb (3rd sing. should)

1Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/should


should verb
to be under necessity or obligation to <you should stop smoking>
Synonyms have (to), must, ought (to), shall, should

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/should
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 8, 2014 01:49AM)
I don't think "You should quit smoking" connotes "You have an obligation to quit smoking."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 02:08AM)
Nor does "You should quite smoking," connote "You must quite smoking."

The difference is clear, I think, in the following sentence:

Even if you're perfectly healthy, you really should stop smoking. If you have COPD, though, you MUST quit.

If someone says to you, "You should try eating shark meat," does that mean you must? Are you now obligated to eat it?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 8, 2014 02:19AM)
Tell it to the dictionary and the thesaurus. You quoted Merriam Webster yourself, Bob. :)

Again, your explanations- Bob, Lobo- haven't addressed the psychological and emotional impacts I've referred to. We're dealing with human beings here. You also haven't addressed, as the dictionary mentioned, the usual critical intention component. You're presenting something different, I think. And I think that's supported by your follow-up about shark meat. Thus, I would suggest the smoking example cited could also refer to someone's submission to addiction. And I think smokers are sensitive to that.

Point of reference...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 03:18AM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Tell it to the dictionary and the thesaurus. You quoted Merriam Webster yourself, Bob. :)
...

[/quote]

Must I? Or is that just a suggestion? :eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 03:31AM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:


...Again, your explanations- Bob, Lobo- haven't addressed the psychological and emotional impacts I've referred to. We're dealing with human beings here. You also haven't addressed, as the dictionary mentioned, the usual critical intention component. You're presenting something different, I think. And I think that's supported by your follow-up about shark meat. Thus, I would suggest the smoking example cited could also refer to someone's submission to addiction. And I think smokers are sensitive to that.

Point of reference... [/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

But if you're referring to my earlier statement that Ms. Mayard's decision was laudable, I didn't intend that to mean that her choice should encourage others in similar circumstances to do the same thing. I was simply commending her courage to follow through on what I think she honestly believed to be the right thing [i]for her[/i]. I think she simply followed the ancient maxim, "To thine own self be true."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 8, 2014 07:42AM)
“The co-existence of physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, organ harvesting, and transplantation in modern society sets the stage for the co-joining of these practices. This chapter argues that they are in fact co-joined, in both theory and practice, in what is called thrift-euthanasia. Thrift-euthanasia is not only advocated in theory, but is also conducted today on a national and international scale with impunity.” - Law and Medicine: Current Legal Issues Volume 3 Michael Freeman and Andrew Lewis
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299189.001.0001/acprof-9780198299189-chapter-29?rskey=VPP7o8&result=1

“HOSPITALS in Glasgow's twin city in China sell organs taken illegally from innocent people executed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), campaigners claimed last night.
Ahead of an international conference today in Glasgow about organ harvesting, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee said the illegal practice is rife in Dalian, a city in north east China with which Scotland's largest city has been twinned since 1987.

Delegates attending the event - hosted by Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH) - will hear claims the Chinese regime removes organs from prisoners who are still alive and that wealthy "health tourists" travel to China to buy kidneys and livers available on the black market.

Speakers include, David Matas, a Canadian human rights lawyer who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize last year for exposing China's illegal organ trade.
The victims of China's organ business are said to be mainly people arrested for practising Falun Gong, a spiritual movement banned by the CCP. Falun The CCP claims Falun Gong is a dangerous cult and outlawed it for "illegal activities" in 1999.

Mr Matas is co-author of Bloody Harvest - The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs, for which he received his Nobel nomination last year. His investigation with David Kilgour, a former Canadian secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, revealed that in addition to using organs from executed prisoners, China has gone to the point of harvesting organs from living "prisoners of conscience".

Mr Matas said that between 2000 and 2005 there were 41,500 transplants carried out in China whereby the only explanation for the sourcing was imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners.

He said: "China acknowledges organs for transplants come overwhelmingly from prisoners. Their claim is that prisoners consent before execution. We concluded the bulk of these prisoners are Falun Gong practitioners who do not consent and have not been sentenced to death."

The sale of human organs is illegal in China but the black market has flourished over the past decade. In 2008, Glasgow Lord Provost Bob Winter led a delegation to Dalian and discussions are currently under way to link schools in the cities.

Yuyu Williamson, a Chinese human rights activist living in Glasgow, said there was evidence organ harvesting is widespread.

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council said: "Illegal organ harvesting is a deplorable practice. Human and civil rights are a fundamental part of the council's outlook and these issues were raised by the Lord Provost when he was in China in 2008."

The Chinese Embassy declined to comment.” - The Scotsman http://web.archive.org/web/20110924125232/http://news.scotsman.com/health/Glasgow39s-twin-city-is-selling.6830784.jp

Tell that to the dictionary. “Consent” eh.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 8, 2014 08:58AM)
Just to jump in here. The should/must debate is a bit of a red herring in my opinion and not really that fruitful.

What's important, I think, is the question of the weight that an expert opinion has, and the layperson's ability to evaluate that opinion.

We all have different ways of dealing with that information gap; it's both cultural and individual. When I was a child no one in my family questioned the doctor's opinion. The doctor was the expert. Now, I routinely get a second opinion or do my own research. But that's just me. Sometimes it was useful to do that. Sometimes, I made the wrong decision--following the doctor's advice would have been the smarter thing to do. But the point is we each have a different way of dealing with that issue.

It's the same issue we see in the 96 pages of the climate change thread regarding scientists; it's the same issue we have to deal with when trusting politicians who want to send troops overseas. There are cultural and individual norms that have changed over the years in terms of how much we trust the opinion of another. No one is compelled to trust another however there are strong forces surrounding the individual every day telling us just who to trust and who not to, and it's not always easy to sort that out.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 8, 2014 10:20AM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Tell it to the dictionary and the thesaurus. You quoted Merriam Webster yourself, Bob. :)
. [/quote]

The definitions have overlap, but that doesn't make them identical.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 12:20PM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, landmark wrote:
Just to jump in here. The should/must debate is a bit of a red herring in my opinion and not really that fruitful.

What's important, I think, is the question of the weight that an expert opinion has, and the layperson's ability to evaluate that opinion.

We all have different ways of dealing with that information gap; it's both cultural and individual. When I was a child no one in my family questioned the doctor's opinion. The doctor was the expert. Now, I routinely get a second opinion or do my own research. But that's just me. Sometimes it was useful to do that. Sometimes, I made the wrong decision--following the doctor's advice would have been the smarter thing to do. But the point is we each have a different way of dealing with that issue.

It's the same issue we see in the 96 pages of the climate change thread regarding scientists; it's the same issue we have to deal with when trusting politicians who want to send troops overseas. There are cultural and individual norms that have changed over the years in terms of how much we trust the opinion of another. No one is compelled to trust another however there are strong forces surrounding the individual every day telling us just who to trust and who not to, and it's not always easy to sort that out. [/quote]

All true. But Brittany Maynard was already suffering from the effects of the terminal cancer. They were not just a theoretical possibility suggested by doctors. And she certainly sought second, and even third opinions. All of the doctors and experts she consulted with agreed with the prognosis.

But there's no need for me, or anyone else, to speak on her behalf. She did it very eloquently herself:

http://www.people.com/article/brittany-maynard-died-terminal-brain-cancer
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 8, 2014 04:24PM)
It seems to me nobody on earth is qualified to Judge her decision.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 8, 2014 04:39PM)
Fortunately, we as a society don't really have to judge her decision. We have to decide whether or not she has the legal right to make it, though.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 8, 2014 05:11PM)
Indeed. That is where it opens up all sorts of questions.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 8, 2014 06:33PM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:


...Again, your explanations- Bob, Lobo- haven't addressed the psychological and emotional impacts I've referred to. We're dealing with human beings here. You also haven't addressed, as the dictionary mentioned, the usual critical intention component. You're presenting something different, I think. And I think that's supported by your follow-up about shark meat. Thus, I would suggest the smoking example cited could also refer to someone's submission to addiction. And I think smokers are sensitive to that.

Point of reference... [/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

But if you're referring to my earlier statement that Ms. Mayard's decision was laudable, I didn't intend that to mean that her choice should encourage others in similar circumstances to do the same thing. I was simply commending her courage to follow through on what I think she honestly believed to be the right thing [i]for her[/i]. I think she simply followed the ancient maxim, "To thine own self be true." [/quote]

S2000 knows where the expansion on "should" came from. Goes back to your questions to me as well, Bob. And continues with the non-violence and self-discrepancies references I posted. And is key to our "influence of others on or toward freedom of choice" focus.

[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We have to decide whether or not she has the legal right to make it, though. [/quote]

Do we?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 8, 2014 06:42PM)
I believe I understand your view now, Laurie. I've been thinking about it and perhaps you've changed my mind just a little bit. I DO see how someone whose condition wasn't as hopeless as Brittany believed her own to be, might be influenced by her decision.

Maybe the right thing is to just quietly accept that she made her own decision, and to respect that - but not to unduly glorify that decision publicly.

Is that the essence of your point?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 8, 2014 07:09PM)
How might anyone be influenced by anyone? She made a choice. It's been said to be a free one. What does that mean? Was she true to herself?

It's about what is. All the "should"s and "ought" s and "must"s set up a discrepancy. I like to deal directly with what "is". How can we do that if everyone is distracted by what "should" be?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 8, 2014 07:42PM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
S2000 knows where the expansion on "should" came from.[/quote]
Indeed I do.

And, inasmuch as there's disagreement on the meaning of "should", perhaps the prudent course would have been to have asked me the sense in which I'd intended it.

You never did answer my question about whether you think that free choice should (or [i]ought to[/i]) be unlimited or not.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 8, 2014 07:44PM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
How might anyone be influenced by anyone? She made a choice. It's been said to be a free one. What does that mean? Was she true to herself?

It's about what is. All the "should"s and "ought" s and "must"s set up a discrepancy. I like to deal directly with what "is". How can we do that if everyone is distracted by what "should" be?[/quote]
Bad situations cannot be improved if one focuses solely on what is and ignores what could (or should or ought to) be.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 8, 2014 07:56PM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We have to decide whether or not she has the legal right to make it, though. [/quote]
Do we? [/quote]


Well, yes. Laws are passed, or they're not, and in the immortal words of Neil Peart, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 8, 2014 08:00PM)
Assuming for the sake of argument that S2000 HAD said (to us) that the people in question "shouldn't" have euthanized the horse (which he didn't), how does that equate to "must" or "exerting pressure" on people to whom he never made the comment?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 8, 2014 08:43PM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Assuming for the sake of argument that S2000 HAD said (to us) that the people in question "shouldn't" have euthanized the horse (which he didn't), how does that equate to "must" or "exerting pressure" on people to whom he never made the comment?[/quote]
To be fair, Lobo, I did write that, "And at the other extreme, I've seen many animals who lead miserable lives, but whose owners cling to them desperately when they [b][i]should[/i][/b] be ending the suffering." (Emphasis added.)

And, for the record, they [b][i]should[/i][/b] have euthanized Mattie instead of letting her suffer for over a year. (Unfortunately, you got that part backward.)

You are correct, however, that I never said anything to them to that effect, nor to the other pet owners to whom I refer in the first quote.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 9, 2014 07:38AM)
For those who still don't understand the difference in connotation between "should" and "must," the following explains it quite clearly:

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/difference-between-should-and-must/

It's a very clear explanation with many examples. It's also rather long so I'll just include the summary here:

[quote]Summary:

“Must” represents more of an obligation while “should” represents a probability or recommendation.[/quote]


Another detailed explanation of the difference between "should," "ought" and "must:"

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/03/must-should-ought/

Bottom line- "Must" is used to refer to something that is obligatory or compulsory either by law or exigency. "Ought" connotes more of a moral or ethical obligation, and "should" is really just a recommendation.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 9, 2014 09:19AM)
I think that "should" is also used to refer to other people's moral choices, in which case it's neither a recommendation nor an obligation, but a commentary (i.e. A value judgment), and "must" is never used that way. For instance, "He should have told her he was out drinking."
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 9, 2014 11:03AM)
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
How might anyone be influenced by anyone? She made a choice. It's been said to be a free one. What does that mean? Was she true to herself?

It's about what is. All the "should"s and "ought" s and "must"s set up a discrepancy. I like to deal directly with what "is". How can we do that if everyone is distracted by what "should" be? [/quote]


Once more, Bob, I think the dictionary (ies) are in disagreement with you, and whether they are or not, we're dealing with human beings and you're not addressing the discrepancies, psychology, or emotion.

Why didn't S2000 tell them directly how he felt and why is he telling us now about what "should have been"? And how would Mattie's owners feel if someone sent them a copy of his comments here? How do others feel about what he said? How do others in a similar position to Mattie's owners feel about what he said?

As Jeff questioned earlier, where did "Brittany Maynard's" concept of "dignity" come from? Was it "entirely" her own? Does it matter now? What we're left with is what "is". The idea that we are one begins to be emphasized once more.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 9, 2014 11:18AM)
[quote]On Nov 9, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Why didn't S2000 tell them directly how he felt and why is he telling us now about what "should have been"? And how would Mattie's owners feel if someone sent them a copy of his comments here? How do others feel about what he said? How do others in a similar position to Mattie's owners feel about what he said?[/quote]
Why are you asking Bob all of these questions? He cannot possibly know the answers.

Shouldn't you be asking me?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 9, 2014 11:19AM)
[quote]On Nov 9, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
How might anyone be influenced by anyone? She made a choice. It's been said to be a free one. What does that mean? Was she true to herself?

It's about what is. All the "should"s and "ought" s and "must"s set up a discrepancy. I like to deal directly with what "is". How can we do that if everyone is distracted by what "should" be? [/quote]


Once more, Bob, I think the dictionary (ies) are in disagreement with you, and whether they are or not, we're dealing with human beings and you're not addressing the discrepancies, psychology, or emotion.

Why didn't S2000 tell them directly how he felt and why is he telling us now about what "should have been"? And how would Mattie's owners feel if someone sent them a copy of his comments here? How do others feel about what he said? How do others in a similar position to Mattie's owners feel about what he said?

As Jeff questioned earlier, where did "Brittany Maynard's" concept of "dignity" come from? Was it "entirely" her own? Does it matter now? What we're left with is what "is". The idea that we are one begins to be emphasized once more. [/quote]


I don't know what you mean by the "discrepancies" you're referring to.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 9, 2014 11:40AM)
Page 5. Nov. 7, 9:31pm. to start, Lobo.

----------------

We see Brittany seemed aware her doctors didn't necessarily know what they were talking about and yet she believed the prognosis. How much research did she do? You can google this and see there are people who have survived and doctors are seeing "emerging survivorship" and realizing their view of this disease is changing yet people are still getting the old prognosis. She seemed to feel anything short of a cure wasn't good enough. That's interesting. Especially in regards to the discrepancies linked to and the reality that doctors said she may have been living with this disease for a decade.

I posted a link about Brittany a few pages back, I'll post it here again beneath these quotes from it:


"This time, doctors said it was likely a Grade 4 glioblastoma and told her she had at most six months to live.

Without opening up her brain to take a sample of the tumor, they couldn't be sure, though, they told her – one of many frustratingly inexact answers she got during her illness."

"'That's always been my experience as a really healthy person, so it's been a scarier experience having a type of cancer that's not well understood in the grand scheme of things,' she added. 'For me, not being able to cured has been terrifying....'"

"...Maynard's tumor seemed to mystify doctors, she told PEOPLE.

At one point, they told her they thought it could have been growing very slowly for as long as 10 years, she said.

'The doctors are shocked at how large my tumor is,' she said. 'They said they've never seen one this large. It's in the parts of my brain that control speech and language, so they think those functions have shifted elsewhere in my brain since I can still speak.'

Experts agree there is still a lot unknown about many brain tumors and more funding is needed for research.

'It could happen to any of us,' Wilson says. 'We just don't know who or when or why. That's what our research funding goes toward.'

Sean Grady says patient diagnosed with glioblastoma often face a very grim prognosis.

'The odds are definitely against you for long-term survival,' he says. 'Radiation and straightforward chemotherapy can improve things by a series of months but not by a series of years.'

For Maynard, though, the horrific side effects she faced from radiation, which would have had to encompass nearly her entire brain, and chemotherapy were not something she was willing to endure...."

"...Hope Dwindles
After her initial diagnosis in January, Maynard began to research death with dignity...."

http://www.people.com/article/Brittany-Mayard-death-medical-journey
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 9, 2014 02:50PM)
[quote]On Nov 9, 2014, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Why didn't S2000 tell them directly how he felt and why is he telling us now about what "should have been"? And how would Mattie's owners feel if someone sent them a copy of his comments here? How do others feel about what he said? How do others in a similar position to Mattie's owners feel about what he said?[/quote]
Why are you asking Bob all of these questions? He cannot possibly know the answers.

Shouldn't you be asking me? [/quote]

Don't be silly. I'm the Master Mind Reader. I'm SUPPOSED to know these things.

But, personally, I don't think Mattie's owners or others in similar situations could care less about any opinions offered here.

Your mind is my playground. :eek:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 9, 2014 04:49PM)
It's no coincidence, you understand, that your government is making your life miserable at the moment. If they make your life wretched enough, there’s nothing much to live for is there?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 9, 2014 07:48PM)
[quote]On Nov 9, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Don't be silly. I'm the Master Mind Reader. I'm SUPPOSED to know these things.[/quote]
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. (Even the Master Mind Reader needs a mind to read.)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 9, 2014 08:33PM)
[youtube]-dpk5Z7GIFs[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 9, 2014 09:33PM)
[youtube]dw3-5cIBuSA[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 9, 2014 10:25PM)
More here: http://www.ayahuasca-wasi.com/english/articles/NVC.pdf

"It requires great honesty and openness, developing a certain literacy of expressions, and overcoming deeply ingrained learning that emphasizes judgment, fear, obligation, duty, punishment and reward, and shame."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 9, 2014 11:18PM)
Not a philosophy I ascribe to, but interesting reading. Thanks for sharing it.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Nov 10, 2014 12:08AM)
You're welcome, Lobo. Thankyou for taking a look. :) I make mistakes in communication, I acknowledge that. This passage addresses much of what I've been getting at and explains fairly well my resistance to the "ought"s and "should"s and "have to"s :

"Acting out of duty:
The most dangerous of all behaviors may consist of doing things 'because we’re suppose to.' When we use language which denies choice, e.g. words such as 'should,' 'have to,' 'ought,' 'must,' 'can’t,' 'suppose to,' etc., our behaviors arise out of a vague sense of guilt, duty, or obligation. I consider this to be the most socially dangerous and personally unfortunate of all the ways we act when we’re cut off from our needs. When we speak a language that denies choice, we give up the life in ourselves for a robot-like mentality that disconnects us from our own core."