Former National candidate killed mother
July 5th, 2009 at 9:22 am by David FarrarWell that is the possible tabloid headline. The Herald on Sunday reports:
An Auckland-born scientist has admitted in a leaked manuscript to giving his cancer-ravaged mother a lethal overdose of morphine. …
Sean Davison published a book last month about his 85-year-old mother’s final days, without disclosing the role he played after his mother summoned him home to Dunedin to help her die.
However, a copy of his original manuscript, supplied anonymously to the Herald on Sunday this week, contains the incriminating details that were deleted from the book. …
Davison’s memoir, Before We Say Goodbye, was published last month. Adapted from his diary, the book described his mother’s repeated requests for him to help her die, and her unsuccessful 33-day hunger strike. But it skirted around the circumstances of her death, in October 2006 at her Dunedin home.
However, in the manuscript he reveals she died hours after he gave her “a lethal drink of crushed morphine tablets” dissolved in a glass of water.
He wrote: “I held it in front of her and said, ‘If you drink this you will die.’ I really wanted to be so absolutely sure that there was no hesitation.
“She answered, ‘You’re a wonderful son.”‘
It is very sad that our laws forced Davison to do what he did, but he did so out of live and a desire to end his mother’s suffering. A terrible burden to bear though.
Sean was my first National Party candidate – he stood for Dunedin North in 1987, and I was the Regional Chair of the Otago/Southland Young Nationals. A very nice and decent guy.
Related posts:
- Sean Davison and Euthanasia
- The wrong person to try and intimidate
- Gossipmonger mother sues rival gossipmonger
- I blame the mother
July 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
A very nice and decent guy.
I don’t doubt that he is. But he is also, under NZ law, a murder suspect.
It shouldn’t be like this. It needn’t be like this.
There are NO valid, logical reasons, to deny a dignified death to all.
Maybe, just maybe, we will one day see a government with enough balls to tell the god botherers to fuck off, they aren’t soecial, and legislate so families no longer need to suffer like this.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Terribly sad. I hope the police do not prosecute.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:08 am
The crown can hardly prosecute this man given the hundreds that have died on waiting lists due to failed health polices, are they any less guilty?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:12 am
God botherers will be ranting that people need to suffer.
I have no problem with god botherers suffering, in fact too truly suffer they should go without morphine when they have terminal bone cancer.
Arseholes, who believe we should be a theocracy.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:38 am
MyNameIsJack:
What would the criteria be? Could anybody turn up at a State run suicide facility and apply for death?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If you put it like that, Pascal, why not?
Grumpy, I often wonder why people who believe god provides for them use modern medecine; surely they are going against god’s will.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
“Grumpy, I often wonder why people who believe god provides for them use modern medecine; surely they are going against god’s will.”
Why don’t you fuck off you simpleton child. Whatever might be going on in a time and space that stretches across an infinite expanse of galaxy after galaxy after galaxy, your perceptions of that infinity are as thin as paper. You’re just a stupid know nothing little ranter. Fuck off.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I believe in palliative medicine, not children taking their parents life in their own hands and ending it. I was in a similar position with both my parents, and while they suffered the care was far better than me or a family member killing them. I condemn Davidson and I hope he gets charged.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Red, I suggest you fuck off. You ignorance and arrogance is matched only by the arrogant ignorance of the shoe fetishist Wannabe from Wassilla you worship.
You, of course, know everything because god told you, I suppose. Just like your dipshit hero from Alska – a woman who parades her ignorance as a badge of honour.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“You, of course, know everything because god told you, I suppose.”
No its you who presumes to know everything, because you are always telling believers, with the absolute certainty that is typical of dumbfucks like you, they are wrong.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
putting people out of their suffering by a morphine overdose happens every day in public hospitals around the country.
Vote:I was given the choice by the doctor to put a relative out of their suffering and reluctantly agreed to it – (a decision that still haunts me) but why this poor bugger Davison has to go to the lengths he did is outrageous
July 5th, 2009 at 11:36 am
tvb (297) Vote: 0 1 Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I believe in palliative medicine, not children taking their parents life in their own hands and ending it.
Well, good for you, but why should your choice be the only choice?
I was in a similar position with both my parents, and while they suffered the care was far better than me or a family member killing them.
Was it? Not everyone wants to die in a drug induced haze, shitting their pants, unable to recognise those around them.
Patrick, were I in your position, I would have agreed and felt no regret. Regret would be if I had the chance to end sufferring and didn’t.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Poor chap deserves a medal. What he allegedly did required courage and fortitude.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Christ, what a sad story. I can’t imagine the agony of being put into that situation – for the mother or the son. And now the state will prolong the agony.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
side show bob: yes. The irony is sad and pathetic.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Mynameisjack, God helps those that help themselves. Stop being an anti-christian and ignorant prick.
If anybody has seen someone close to them die from a terminal disease, they would know the pain this guy would have had to face. It’s a very horrible situation to find yourself in. It’s something we should have a serious debate to see if we should change the law. Unfortunately it’s as popular as abortion law and every politician wont touch it with a 6 foot barge pole unless they are coming to the end of their career.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I just think this is another one of those issues that the state should not have any say in. It is an issue that involves consenting adults – if and only if it doesn’t then of course the state has a role – and the state helps nobody by interfering with their will. Letting people decide for themselves according to their own principles taking into account the feelings of their loved ones means the people get the outcomes they want.
The best one can hope for with state intervention, as always, is that it doesn’t f*** things up too much. It should butt out.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Patrick, were I in your position, I would have agreed and felt no regret. Regret would be if I had the chance to end sufferring and didn’t.”
I dont believe you would necessarily know that until you were put in that position. It’s not so much regret as it is a feeling of guilt
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Opposing assisted suicide has nothing to do with God and everything to do with individual autonomy and individual responsibility.
Death is supposed to hurt and it is supposed to be hard. Killing yourself should without exception be the hardest decision anyone should make. And it should be a decision made alone.
As I said on my blog a couple of years back ( http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/mulholland_drive/2007/03/euthanasia_is_a.html ):
“I don’t think it is right, morally or politically, to allow cop-outs for [the decision to take your own life]. The cop-out is allowing someone else to ease the burden of that decision by “flicking the switch” for you. To me that’s an admission that you, as a person, do actually deep down wish to live and cannot bear to do the deed yourself. So asking for assistance is not consent in any way, but an abdication of your responsibility for your own life. You are not taking your own life, you don’t have the balls, so you ask someone else to “murder” you. I don’t think that’s a burden anyone should be allowed to take upon themselves, whether they seek it or otherwise…. Life is the only real freedom we have. Without life, we have nothing. I seek to maximise the freedom (life) of individuals everywhere and assisting individuals to extinguish that freedom is not on my agenda. They can do it their own damned selves without my help, or anyone elses.”
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Brian, it is a debate we need to have, but it is a debate best done with rational thought, not rooted in the pig ignorance of religion, christian or not.
God helps those that help themselves
In other words, god does nothing, Man does all.
How anyone can possibly believe in a benevolent, loving god and look at the sufferring he causes before one gets to “meet their maker” is beyond me.
Although, I shouldn’t be surprised – look at his track record of malevolent evil throughout the world.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Patrick Starr (2592) Vote: 0 0 Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Patrick, were I in your position, I would have agreed and felt no regret. Regret would be if I had the chance to end sufferring and didn’t.”
I dont believe you would necessarily know that until you were put in that position. It’s not so much regret as it is a feeling of guilt
Then I shall rephrase – Patrick, were I in your position, I would have agreed and would feel no guilt.
There is no shame or guilt in ending suffering. Pain and sorrow, a sense of loss, for sure. But not guilt.
When my father was in hospital after his penultimate heart attack he disccussed with hsi doctors what should happen the next time. They advised he would be unlikely to survive another, he said he wanted no treatment, but just left to die.
Sadly, he didn’t die in hospital, he died at home, his ribs being broken, his dignity destroyed by an ambulance officer who refused to listen to my mother to just ket him go. Should she have aclled an ambulance? I don’t think so, but as an 80 year old on her own, she felt she had no choice.
Had I been there, I would not have allowed him to suffer that final idignity.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Patrick: “putting people out of their suffering by a morphine overdose happens every day in public hospitals around the country.”
That’s how my father was eased out of his suffering. It was what he wanted and while I found it difficult at the time in retrospect I think it was the best thing for him.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
If a hospice nurse had approached me while either of my parents were dying asking for permission to give them a fatal dose I would have flatly refused and so would have all my family. My mother fought death to the end and good on her.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
well good on you tvb, and good on your mother, if that is what she wanted. But waht is gained by fighting “death to the end”?
Maybe I don’t want to fight to the end, why should I be denied the choice of how I depart?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Jack – whilst your language is inflammatory and really quite boorish I agree with your sentiment.
My Dad also was ‘put down’ (is there a better way to describe it?) in hospital. He was ready and knew it was time and I was very happy that he did not suffer.
If I had someone close to me that was dying like Seans mother was I would do the same as he did and take the consequences afterwards.
I can’t really work out why anyone thinks that a release from pain and suffering for the individual AND family is a bad idea.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“I can’t really work out why anyone thinks that a release from pain and suffering for the individual AND family is a bad idea.”
Because one persons pain and sufferring is another persons fight.
Vote:How the hell would the medical profession differ between the two? The next thing that would happen is those who want to fight to the end, and their families, would be considered sick God botherer types by the likes of “MyNameIsJack” for their decision.
This is not a simple issue, If I was in pain and dying I would value every remaining second I could spend with my loved ones.
A display of strength in the face of suffering is a gift to all that witness it, something sorely lacking in our societey today.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
tvb – you’re a sanctimonious dickhead! My mum died of cancer one year ago yesterday – and we relied on Paliative care at Waikato Hospital. It was a horrible end – where the nurse decided Mum wasn’t in pain (although she was asking for relief) and wouldn’t give her anything and she had the audacity to accuse my mother and I of trying to commit suicide/murder! There was no morphine in her drip, only Medazelam, and her Paliative care specialist had told her she only need ask if she needed anything. This was denied her by the f….. nurse! After 2 days of absolute hell where she was dying of starvation and thirst we had a different specialist who added morphine to her drip. This gave her immense relief and she finally drifted into a peaceful (I can only hope) coma the next day. It still took four days of coma before she passed away! Mum would never have put any of us – or the hospital staff in a position of taking her life because of the legal ramifications – but I wonder if she had the choice – what she would have chosen. Point being – she did not have the choice and we all suffered because of it.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
You’re still an ignorant prick Jack.
“How anyone can possibly believe in a benevolent, loving god and look at the sufferring he causes before one gets to “meet their maker” is beyond me.
Although, I shouldn’t be surprised – look at his track record of malevolent evil throughout the world.”
Nope, that was man. Looking at last century for the two most violent evil men and we had Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Both were athiests. (also left wing regardless of what you call Nazisim. It’s left wing state knows best)
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Shunda, I have experienced being close to someone, helping them fight illness for a long time, in and out of hospital, through operations and treatments and transfusions, and then seeing them decide they had had enough and letting go.
My father had heaps of “strength” to hang on, and also the sense to let go when his time had come.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
My right to life is my most absolute and fundamental right, endowed upon me by my existence as a human being. It is my inalienable and law-transcending right to choose when and how to end my life, with the exception that my choice must not infringe the rights of others.
How any society which forbids assisted suicide to those physically unable to kill themselves can call itself civilised is beyond me.
This is an which transcends religion. It is bigger than any government, bigger than any political party, bigger than God. It is a issue which goes to the core of what it means to be human – to comprehend the fact of your own existence and rationally contemplate its lack. It is this which defines the human race, and any law which prevents a terminally ill person from being assisted into death is one which dehumanises us.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Brian Marshall, having done a bit of reading lately on the subject I don’t think Hitler knew what Hitler believed in so I’m pleased you do.
Your argument may have more credibilty if you were to itemise those killed by atheists as opposed to those killed by act of god (general numbers will do).
As for the discussion, I’m opposed to the state killing anyone (except for silver 4WD owners and drivers – then it should be mandatory and without trial or appeal) but I agree with MNIJ, people should be allowed to die when they wish and if they need assistance to do so and someone is prepared to offer that assistance this should be encouraged not penalised.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
BlairM … your 11.53 was one of your best posts. Well said.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
tvb @ 12.40 – it IS about choice.
When my old man was dying the District Nurse
said his time was near – in a coma and pain – and that by keeping the morphine
at full dose we would end his suffering sooner. We all made the choice to follow her advice,
and father died peacefully very shortly after.
My sister, also a DN, felt immediate guilt. I was able to talk her out of that and in
reflection we both were happy with the decision we made.
I have no problem with people having beliefs, but it is only with personal experience
Vote:that we can have any idea of how we will react.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Shunda barunda 1:02 pm Says:
“How the hell would the medical profession differ between the two? The next thing that would happen is those who want to fight to the end, and their families, would be considered sick God botherer types by the likes of “MyNameIsJack” for their decision.”
Agree 100% Shunda,
Vote:As soon as man starts playing God then the lines become totally blurred between right and wrong. We may not like to see our loved ones suffer, heck, life is full of suffering and death, but nonetheless murder is murder, and suicide is suicide [self murder]. Our nation ‘murders’ approx 18,000 babies every year by abortion and we get around it by making laws that stipulate that they are ‘not alive’. Doesn’t alter the fact, though, that this is state sanctioned murder. And then we complain that we have an aging population. Duh!
This is the thin end of the wedge. If we change our laws to enable euthanasia in certain circumstances then ‘who’ does decide? We throw out God’s laws at our own peril! And man are we paying the consequences for it.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Blair Mulholland in his 11.53am post shows himself to be a callous prick. Moreover, you have to suspect the fibre and motives of people who accuse others of being cowards. Reminds me of the women who handed around white feathers during the First World War.
Does Mulholland really think people near death are physically capable of committing suicide?
Here’s what Mulholland posted:”Death is supposed to hurt and it is supposed to be hard. Killing yourself should without exception be the hardest decision anyone should make. And it should be a decision made alone.”
Presumably that means you can’t get even get a medical opinion on the outlook.
Mulholland goes on to say:
“So asking for assistance is not consent in any way, but an abdication of your responsibility for your own life. You are not taking your own life, YOU DON’T HAVE THE BALLS [capitalisation added], so you ask someone else to “murder” you.”
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
We throw out God’s laws at our own peril! And man are we paying the consequences for it.
Which god, and which laws?
The god that promotes genocide?
The god that thinks it right to murder children?
The god that sanctions the taking of others’ property if it is done in his name?
The god that rewards murderers with “72 virgins”?
The god that subjected “his only begotten son” to an horriffic death?
Come on Kris, which god and with laws?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“What would the criteria be? Could anybody turn up at a State run suicide facility and apply for death?”
No, the state shouldn’t be in the business of suicide.
But – everyone should own their bodies, and there their life, definatley not the state, and definately not anyone else. I and I alone should have the right to end my life if I so wish, and after having watched my father slowly die from terminal illness, I would never deny anyone the right to end their life if in such a situation,
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“Which god, and which laws? ”
Go to sleep fugley. Honestly take a look at yourself. Your intense hatred of God is evidence of a God.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
MyNameIsJack 11:54 am Says:
“How anyone can possibly believe in a benevolent, loving god and look at the sufferring he causes before one gets to “meet their maker” is beyond me.”
Once again you show you ignorance of all things Biblical!
Vote:Death entered the creation as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s sin. There was NO death [of man and all that has breath] prior to this. God gave man freewill to either live by the rules or suffer the consequences of rejecting the rules. Of course He also provided the antidote to man’s rebellion, but once again it comes down to whether man ‘chooses’ or ‘rejects’ this provision. Freewill once again. The offer is there to all – up until this life ends. Let’s just hope that it is God alone who determines when our life is to end.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“As soon as man starts playing God…”
I presume you aren’t referring to priests and pastors, but that is what they do all the time.
We all prolong our lives by eating and drinking, taking herbal remedies, using doctors and hospitals and drugs and operations.
Sure, staying alive is our most basic instinct, but it will always be overcome eventually. Choosing to speed up the end is just another choice we should be able to make.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Where does murder end and euthanasia begin that is what I would like to know. And defining that boundary is incredibly difficult. Maybe parents will feel they are a burdon and feel they should be “put down” by their children. I find the whole thing monsterous.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Quite frankly, mate, I couldn’t give a flying fuck what that load of bullshit, brainwashing propaganda says.
Newsflash, sunshine, the Bible is a load of crap. Get used to it.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Death entered the creation as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s sin.
Lie number one. There was no Adam, no Eve, simply a fairytale.
There was NO death [of man and all that has breath] prior to this
Lie number 2.
IF your fairytale was true, how would anyone know? Adam hadn’t been alive very long, Eve an even shorter time. No one had lived long enough, at that satge, to know death. But that”s by the by as it is a lie anyway.
Once again you show you ignorance of all things Biblical
Lie number 3
“And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Genesis 3:22
this seems to show that death was god’s plan for Man right from the beginning, that death came, not because of Adam’s supposed sin, but because that’s the way god planned it, that’s the way god wanted it to be.
Now Kris, how do you reconcile your belief in god and your breaking of almost all his rules?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Nice one fugley. I hope God can save your hate filled soul. Abortion is murder in case you forgot my son.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
MyNameIsJack 2:24 pm Says:
1. Which god, and which laws?
2. The god that promotes genocide?
3. The god that thinks it right to murder children?
4. The god that sanctions the taking of others’ property if it is done in his name?
5. The god that rewards murderers with “72 virgins”?
6. The god that subjected “his only begotten son” to an horriffic death?
Answers:
1. The God of the Bible; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob [Israel]. His Laws as stipulated in His word, the Bible.
2. The god of evolution; Satan, a murderer from the beginning.
3. As per 2.
4. The god of Islam; Allah.
5. As per 4.
6. Christ [God the Son] chose to die willingly for the sins of the world, and could have come down from the cross had He so chosen. His love for us ‘kept’ Him there.
Any more questions?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Jack, instead of calling me a “callous prick”, you should work on the substance of my arguments.
I have huge compassion for those in great pain, but wishing someone dead is not compassion by any definition, no matter what pain they are in.
Alleviate the pain, sure. But if a person wants to end their own life, I will not help them, and nobody else should either. People own their own existence, and nobody else should make judgement calls on that unless they are mentally incapable of making the decision themselves.
I wish every human being on this planet life and not death. If a person really really wants to kill themselves, they will find a way. If they think they are not capable of it, they obviously aren’t trying hard enough, and therefore don’t really want to kill themselves, in which case, why should anyone help them?!
Oh, and did nobody get the memo? This isn’t about God, it’s about life, death, and the individual’s right to his or her own body and existence.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
All you euthanasia freaks think your life is your own to end as you please. That is simply not the case. What matters is the terms on how you leave and the effect it has on those who are left behind. That is why I condemn suicide because it leaves such a bad feeling on the living. That is why I condemn euthanasia becuase of the awful decision that is made to end a person’s life. The dead do not matter, it is the living who have to live with the death who matter.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Does Mulholland really think people near death are physically capable of committing suicide?
LOL. Well if they’re “near death”, then all they have to do is wait a bit, surely?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
So Kris, do you keep ALL god’s laws? Do you only eat Kosher? Keep the sabbath holy?
Your god reveals himself as a genocidal maniac in, among other places, deuteronomy
“7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
How about Exodus for his attitude to children?
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
Still, I suppose you’ll be happy to burn in hell for disobeying this maniac.
Let the rest of us get on with living the best lives we can, we have no need of superstition or myth, except for entertainment.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Christopher 2:39 pm Says:
Once again you show you ignorance of all things Biblical!
“Quite frankly, mate, I couldn’t give a flying fuck what that load of bullshit, brainwashing propaganda says.
Newsflash, sunshine, the Bible is a load of crap. Get used to it.”
You are entitled to your opinion. Of course, I think it is you who has been brainwashed.
When you stand before your Maker to give an account of yourself don’t play the ‘ignorance card’. Remember, you have been warned!
The sad thing is is that you will remember this discussion, and will be able to reflect on it for all eternity.
Wake up, buddy!
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Excellent posts by Blair Mulholland.
This is nothing to do with god or religion, and there is no excuse for hastening the demise of one’s relatives these days, considering the advances in palliative care.
If pain relief is insufficient the family should seek out another medical opinion.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Blair M at 2.53: “… if a person wants to end their own life, I will not help them, and nobody else should either.”
Says who, apart from Mulholland? What do you base your moral imperative on?
Your philosophy of only the person involved has the right to take that person’s life seems colossally self-centred to me. Surely such a self-centric philosophy also requires that only the person asked to help has the right to decide whether to help terminate the suffering of a terminally ill person? That is, it’s no-one’s business apart from the helper and the helped.
Further your 2.57 post confirms my opinion of you as a callous prick. What sort of a person uses the LOL (laughing out loud) abbreviation ahead of the statement: “Well if they’re “near death”, then all they have to do is wait a bit, surely?”
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Absloute hogwash Ruth.
Not everyone is happy to die in agony, as Blair wants, not everyone wants to die shitting their pants, not everyone wants to die in a drugged fog, and not everyone wants to die in terror.
Did it ever enter your pea brain that if pain relief is insufficient the pain my be unbearable?
You people and your paliative care dribble make me sick!
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
MyNameIsJack 2:58 pm Says:
“So Kris, do you keep ALL god’s laws? Do you only eat Kosher? Keep the sabbath holy?
Your god reveals himself as a genocidal maniac in, among other places, deuteronomy”
No, I frequently sin. But I have a merciful God who forgives me when I come to Him in repentance.
No, I don’t eat Kosher, that is an Old Testament Jewish requirement.
Ditto regarding the sabbath [Saturday].
The issue with the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, et al was a genetic problem. The same as per prior to the Flood of Noah. These tribes/peoples were the result of human/fallen angel hybridisation – they were not human, but half human, half fallen angel.
Pharoah brought judgement upon his own people by keeping the Jews in slavery, and not ‘letting them go’.
Next …
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
“Christ [God the Son] chose to die willingly” – sort of like suicide by submission?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Surely this guy is taking the piss, right?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Cerium 3:21 pm Says:
“Christ [God the Son] chose to die willingly” – sort of like suicide by submission?”
Not really, more like dying for your country to overthrow tyranny.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Cerium, these days i think its called suicide by cop. But same thing.
Actually, I’ve never understood why xtians cling to the crucifixion as a great sacrfice anyway. Seems like a waste of time to me.
So Kris, you think its OK not to follow all god’s laws, you get to pick and chooes the ones you follow?
Did Jesus eat kosher and keep the sabbath? If it was good enough for him, why isn’t it good enough for you? Are you above Jesus? Where did Jesus say “Fuck, I’d kill for a bacon buttie” or “This Sabbath thing is gay, let’s not do it anymore”?
And you accept that it is OK to kill people if they’re not like you? Becuase they’re a genetic problem? Hitler would be so proud of you.
You really do need to read your bible a bit more thoroughly.
Yes, it says “Pharoah brought judgement upon his own people by keeping the Jews in slavery, and not ‘letting them go’.” But that was AFTER god heardned pharo’s heart, in other words, god forced haro into a situation of god’s making, then god had the temerity to punish him. Its a bit like me weighing you down with a tonne of feathers and then punishing you because you won;’t stand and walk.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Not really, more like dying for your country to overthrow tyranny.
Well, no, because martyrs actually stay dead. They don’t get to get up again on the third day and go home to sit at daddy’s right hand, do they?
When you think about, Jesus’ “sacrifice” was nothing of the sort. It was a mild inconvenience.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Your philosophy of only the person involved has the right to take that person’s life seems colossally self-centred to me. Surely such a self-centric philosophy also requires that only the person asked to help has the right to decide whether to help terminate the suffering of a terminally ill person? That is, it’s no-one’s business apart from the helper and the helped.
Actually it is everybodies business.
Vote:If the right to smack my child for disciplinery purposes is everyones business, then how much more so the ending of human life.
There appears to be two arguments developing here, the right to end a terminally ill persons life, and the right to end ones life for any reason.
Cheapening human life has never had good results for civilisation at any time in history, why is this any different now? There should be no provision for ending ones life for depression, it is barbaric and selfish, suicide is the way of the coward.
Like wise someone sick, but alive without the help of machines, it is a selfish and pathetic inditement on our societey that we think we have a right to freedom of pain. Pain is everywhere, every day, no one wishes for it but it is part of being alive, and we all have to go through it at some stage.
There is an argument for allowing death to those who are only alive due to machines or modern medicine, clearly prolonging someones life in these circumstances could be cruel. But how on earth do you draw the line?
July 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Christopher 3:31 pm Says:
“Surely this guy is taking the piss, right?”
Not really, but thanks for re-quoting my entire post.
Vote:I was actually answering MyNameIsJack’s questions.
But, of course, people like you aren’t really interested in getting to the truth. And when someone tries to illuminate your closed minds you scoff and guffaw.
Sadly, the ‘joke’ is on you!
July 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“When you think about, Jesus’ “sacrifice” was nothing of the sort. It was a mild inconvenience.”
Actually if you look into it it cost an awful lot.
Vote:The trinity was broken, and God took on all the pain and suffering upon himself for all time.
Perhaps this is why those terminally ill that know God have a remarkable peace, and often describe it as the greatest blessing they have ever experienced for this very reason.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Nope, it isn’t.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
MyNameIsJack 3:33 pm
You are living proof of someone who is willfully ignorant, and who twists others words to try and show your own [self deluded] superiority.
The Jews offered animal sacrifices for their sins, and this was a picture of the [then] future sacrifice of Jesus Christ [the Lamb of God]. Once Christ had died for the sins of the world animal sacrifices were no longer required. Similar rational with eating kosher, observing the sabbath [Saturday], etc, etc. I’m not Jewish blah, blah, blah …
I guess I’ve done my best to shed some light on your closed mind. One day you will understand these things, but I suspect it will be too late.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Most of the anti-G-d or anti-religious comments on this thread are made by people clearly unacquainted with the rudimentaries.
Christopher is the only exception.
Striking really, that people make such an important judgement based upon such profound ignorance.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Here come all the loop de loops.
Shunda barunda (538) Vote: 0 1 Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“When you think about, Jesus’ “sacrifice” was nothing of the sort. It was a mild inconvenience.”
Actually if you look into it it cost an awful lot.
The trinity was broken, and God took on all the pain and suffering upon himself for all time.
Which is why there is so much pain and suffering today, is it? Looks like god has failed in taking it on board. But keep deluding yourself, cloes your eyes and ears and you won’t notice the pain and suffering god inflicts on a daily basis.
Perhaps this is why those terminally ill that know God have a remarkable peace, and often describe it as the greatest blessing they have ever experienced for this very reason.
So these people say no to drugs, no to palliative care, no to medical intervention, right?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“Nope, that was man. Looking at last century for the two most violent evil men and we had Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Both were athiests. (also left wing regardless of what you call Nazisim. It’s left wing state knows best)”
Hitler died a Catholic in good standing with the Vatican and was never excommunicated. Stalin was trained as a priest and who knows what religious brainwashing fucked him up?
And most of the people who carried out these mens evil orders were Christians ….not Atheists.Religious belief is very strong in Russia…even in Communist tiimes.Germany in Hitlers time was still strongly Christian too…German soldiers had “God with us” inscribed on their belt buckels.
But Atheism can’t be the wellspring for violent evil acts…or indeed any acts as its a negative…the lack of a belief in a God…nothing more.There is nothing there to base positive actions upon….Stalin and Hitler were driven by the positive beliefs they held….Racism,Maxism,National Socialism and megalomania.
See here..
http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/04/long-row-of-zeros-still-adds-up-to.html
And it is perfectly right and moral to seek the assistance of a consenting other to help you die…its a free market transaction of the most basic kind and so there is no issue…..at least with lovers of true freedom and human rights.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Shunda: “But how on earth do you draw the line?”
I think that has been put in the too hard basket, hence the situation we are in now. Having a law to cover all possibilities is pretty much impossible. On choosing to end a life it’s a huge call to make either way.
I doubt any agreement could be reached on this. And it would be tough to see it decided as a conscience vote or binding referendum.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
reid (2880) Vote: 0 0 Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Most of the anti-religious comments on this thread are made by people clearly unacquainted with the rudimentaries.
I assume you are referring to kris K’s post “Death entered the creation as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s sin. There was NO death [of man and all that has breath] prior to this. ”
Kris obviously didn’t keep reading after Adam took the apple, or he would know that death was always in god’s plan.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Shunda barunda,
Vote:It really is like casting pearls before swine, isn’t it!?
I guess Christ even died for the ‘swines’ – I don’t know if I would have; i’m not that forgiving. Another one of my many sins for which I will have to ask for forgiveness. *Sigh*.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“the pain and suffering god inflicts on a daily basis.”
You should listen to Jung, MNIJ.
“Man is the origin of all future evil”
Surprised you hadn’t worked that out.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“The only real danger that exists is man himself, he is the great danger. And we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man. His psyche should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil.”
http://clarenk.com/2009/04/we-are-origin-of-all-coming-evil-c-jung.html
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Which is why there is so much pain and suffering today, is it? Looks like god has failed in taking it on board. But keep deluding yourself, cloes your eyes and ears and you won’t notice the pain and suffering god inflicts on a daily basis.”
Actually quite relevant to this debate. The bible says the last enemy to be defeated will be death, Jesus has given you legal freedom from it now MNIJ if you do not take the offer, you are part of the problem.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Your philosophy of only the person involved has the right to take that person’s life seems colossally self-centred to me.
Umm… that’s the whole idea. If you start involving other people you lose that autonomy over the decision.
What do you base your moral imperative on?
Logic. I think the will to live should be assumed in all cases. The only way we can truly know if someone has a genuine will to die is if they commit to it on their own and succeed in their efforts.
Not everyone is happy to die in agony, as Blair wants, not everyone wants to die shitting their pants, not everyone wants to die in a drugged fog, and not everyone wants to die in terror.
I don’t want anybody to die at all, so it’s a bit of a stretch to assume I want people to die in agony!
Did it ever enter your pea brain that if pain relief is insufficient the pain my be unbearable?
Then people can weigh that up. Suicide may be the better option. Only the person in pain can truly know. We can’t, so we shouldn’t be involved in their death.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
See, here’s the thing.
G-d gave us free will. Life is a test. Not to see what we do, but to see who we be-come. It’s not meant to be always pleasant and it’s not meant to be challenge-free.
But it is meant to give us moments of each, that we may learn and grow.
The biggest thing that life delivers is spiritual satisfaction – things like power and possessions don’t deliver that. You ask someone powerful if they can cuddle up to their position or someone who doesn’t worry about the mortgage if they can take spiritual comfort from that. If they’re honest, they’ll say no, everytime.
All of us who don’t have either of those two things however, are sometimes all consumed, and sometimes less consumed, with the worry that the lack of those things generates. Those who’ve been made redundant recently will be experiencing that worry, for example.
But it’s not that, which makes a life.
As Churchill said: A living is what you get, a life is what you give back.
Spiritual satisfaction without exception is derived only from what you give to others.
That is what this question is all about. It’s not what we the living think. It’s what those who are preparing for their last hours, think, and want.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I agree with Shunda Barunda at 3.39 that if parents smacking children is society’s business then of course euthanasia is.
However, I am not happy with his statement in this post that:”Like wise someone sick, but alive without the help of machines, it is a selfish and pathetic inditement on our societey that we think we have a right to freedom of pain.”
Shunda, we may not have a right to freedom from pain, but we have a right to try to minimise pain.
And what about the compassion we show animals such as horses and dogs in irreversible pain? We put them down. We give them mercy killing. Who do we regard as more civilised? Nations that try to minimise suffering of animals, or those that inflict pain on animals for pleasure, such as the bullfighting countries of Iberian heritage?
Euthanasia is different from mercy killing animals in that it entails having the suffering party’s consent, either prior or current. Some posters will yell “humans aren’t animals”. Yet there are close parallels and even links between humans’ cause or control of animal suffering and human suffering and human behaviour generally. As as been noted a number of times in the postings on this blog, cruelty to animals is often an early sign of a criminal psychopath personality.
It appalls me that when we put suffering horse out of its misery, some would have us refuse even consideration of the same mercy for a human being. We aren’t talking about widespread euthanasia, but extreme cases, such as those mentioned by Grumpy in his 10.12am post, some bone cancer sufferers. I understand that sometimes only radiation can give some partial relief from the intense suffering often caused by this manifestation of cancer. That, of course, probably also prolongs the pain as the radiation’s temporary effects wear off.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Kris K (43) Vote: 1 0 Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Shunda barunda,
It really is like casting pearls before swine, isn’t it!?
A yes, swine. Why does god hate pigs? Why did Jesus think it OK to cast demons from a man and put them into pigs and then drive the pigs over a cliff. Did he think pigs don’t feel pain? Did he care about the loss to the owner of the pigs? Did he pay compensation?
Jesus, just like his father, was a nutter.
He didn’t understand basic science, but I notice that you, Kris, are also antiscience. Why is that? Is it becauase the more we learn the less we need god? At least I know that a fig tree doesn’t bear fruit all year round; Jesus didn’t. Don’t you find it odd that the son of god, the son of the creator, didn’t understand nature?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
But Jack5, the cancer is all part of god’s plan to show how much he loves us.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Why did Jesus think it OK to cast demons from a man and put them into pigs and then drive the pigs over a cliff.”
Interesting isn’t it, MNIJ, that pigs are the most intelligent of animals, and that pork reportedly tastes like human flesh. Possibly there’s a connection there which may be why certain pious religions eschew pork in all forms.
“the son of the creator, didn’t understand nature?”
Yeah, pull the other one, MNIJ.
Your profound ignorance is showing.
“But Jack5, the cancer is all part of god’s plan to show how much he loves us.”
Or, it could be to demonstrate how foolish man is to eschew the wisdom of the bible. We were told to eat certain things. We’ve ignored that advice.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
God blogs! Or is it Satan?
Why else did God allow those vile bastards Hitler and Stalin to thrive? Surely so they could recur and recur and recur in blog threads on a myriad subjects?
Or was it Satan who shielded them so they could surface in a billion blog threads? (As in James’ post at 3.58).
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Are executions and wars justifiable interventions?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“It appalls me that when we put suffering horse out of its misery, some would have us refuse even consideration of the same mercy for a human being. We aren’t talking about widespread euthanasia, but extreme cases, such as those mentioned by Grumpy in his 10.12am post, some bone cancer sufferers.”
And this is where the debate should be, look I agree it is a very difficult area but because it involves death it is not an easy issue to solve.
Vote:If people can’t agree on what a bloody question on smacking means, how on earth can we agree on an issue as important as this?
The risk of accidental death in these circumstances is there, and it would be extremely tradgic to all involved.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
So reid, you’re OK with Jesus breaking the 8th commandment?
And you OK with Jesus killing a fig tree in a fit of pique because he was hungry and it had no figs, even thoughh they were out of season?
So bone cancer is caused by eating pork? No wonder god botherers hate science so much. It lights a candle in their dark.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“Why else did God allow those vile bastards Hitler and Stalin to thrive? Surely so they could recur and recur and recur in blog threads on a myriad subjects?”
While we are blaming God for all the evil in the world, think about this.
Vote:If God removed all evil tommorrow and gave everybody on earth peace and the choice to do evil or good, how long do you think it would last?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
MyNameIsJack, you certainly have a good knowledge of scripture, I’m going to assume you were once part of the faithful and got pissed off with the hippocracy in the church?
Vote:Well that makes two of us, but seriously becoming bitter about it is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“So reid, you’re OK with Jesus breaking the 8th commandment?”
You shall not steal? Pray explain, MNIJ.
“So bone cancer is caused by eating pork?”
Who knows, MNIJ? Are you an oncologist? It’s probably not good for you which is why the bible suggests we should avoid eating animals that have cloven hoofs and don’t chew the cud.
Of course, you have to do other things as well like not being a glutton, but that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it. Why don’t we argue about whether it’s better to be a glutton or not? That might be simpler for non-medical experts like ourselves.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“I’m going to assume you were once part of the faithful and got pissed off with the hippocracy in the church?”
Yes Shunda, unfortunately some people conflate personal religious faith with man’s practice of it and get all bitter and twisted about the latter, in addition to becoming confused about the tenets practiced by the individual. Always a sad thing to witness.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Just hurry up and legalise all these petty social issues and get to facing the real issues – like crime, drugs and an out-of-control economy.
(BTW, I’m only 17 and have had to experience my grandparents slowly die of liver cancer. Pallative care was great but the fact was both had lived great and fulfilling lives and quite frankly, were okay with death.)
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
By God (or G-d as Reid says???) I’ve had enough of all this talk of god.
Jacks, stop leading them on.
Some people believe in a big man in the sky, some don’t. Can’t we just leave it at that?
Anti euthanasia folks – If your dog was dying of bone cancer what would you do?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Leaving aside the moral/religious dimension for a moment, the point of DPF’s post is to highlight the fact that, yet again, the State is inserting itself into what should be solely a moral choice.
As with the prosecution (I highlighted in a General Debate a few days back) of the 30-something woman who is sleeping with the 40-something man who might be her father, the state has no role in punishing people for making moral choices.
Certainly there’s a point in euthanasia in which the legal apparatus needs to be fired up, and that’s when it’s suspected that a family member has taken the action against the person’s will (and especially when they’ve done so to advance their own self-interest). But then we’re talking murder anyway, not euthanasia.
As I said in relation to the “incest” case, any policeman or prosecutor who uses an arcahic law to pursue these sorts of cases because the accused has taken an action which simply offends their (the policemen’s or prosecutor’s) morality, when no true victim exists, need to be called to account for the suffering and expense they cause.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“Anti euthanasia folks – If your dog was dying of bone cancer what would you do?”
Really honestly folks, we are comparing human life to that of a dogs now?
Vote:If your wife is dying and you want to treat her like a dog, you probably have other issues you should deal with.
People have more value than friggin live stock, religion tells us that and evolution tells us that, take your pick.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Really honestly folks, we are comparing human life to that of a dogs now?
I just asked the question, you spun it in a direction that suits you.
So, here’s a different question for you -
Whats the difference between a dead human and a dead dog?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Hey Jackoff, can I euthanise you? I can say you have CJD or superrabies or something. All that drooling you do, the authorities wouldn’t tell the difference.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Whats the difference between a dead human and a dead dog?
Skid marks in front of the dog.
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist the temptation. I am aware that was in incredibly poor taste.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Whats the difference between a dead human and a dead dog?”
Thats easy, one’s got four legs and fur.
Vote:But seriously dogs are well known for their extravigant funeral sevices and extended periods of grief for their kin.
There is much we can learn from these noble animals.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
James (595) Vote: 3 3 Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“Hitler died a Catholic in good standing with the Vatican and was never excommunicated. Stalin was trained as a priest and who knows what religious brainwashing fucked him up?”
Ah, no James, Hitler wasn’t a Catholic. Maybe you should look up what a Catholic is and then compare it with Hitler. See if you can spot the difference.
Being Catholic is more than just not being ex communicated. There was a reason why many german Catholics ended up in concerntration camps, and it was a lot to do with the fact Nazism is basically un Christian. Stalin never completed his training. He become an athiest communist and turned his back on Christian ideals. (His mum was most unimpressed and never let him forget it).
Communism actively pushed athiesm and closed monestries, temples, mosques and churches all over the Soviet Union. (All starting with Marx’s statement Religion is the Opium of the masses. )
Big ups for you knowing your history on Stalin and Hitler, but shame you don’t understand that murder is un Christian.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“Communism actively pushed athiesm”
True, and indeed, I am disappointed that some brutal dictators like Stalin and Mao were atheists like me.
However Hitler had some links to the Catholic Church until his death. If he was openly atheistic, he would’ve refused to pay church taxes that were common in Germany. He believed in an Aryan Jesus Christ. This excerpt came from a speech in 1927.
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”
Lastly if he was a communist, he would’ve imposed state atheism on the populace.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
ophiuchus, I think Hitler used whatever means he could to control and manipulate the population, are you really sugesting that he was representative of the christian faith? he was also quite fond of euthanasia as I recal.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I believe that we have control over our lives, all aspects of it, and if one decides to end their lives rather than suffering through a terminal illness, then I don’t believe we should stand in their way. I don’t buy the slippery slope arguments, because it is a clear cut situation.
Conversely, if there is no clear consent from the terminally ill person and they are unable to give it, then no-one should have the right to choose for them. Either you leave instructions or you don’t.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Come on, where’s the private member’s bill on legalising this kind of thing?
Although even if it was pulled I guess National would bloc-vote against it, what is it with them and conscience votes?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I think that I rent houses to some of these people.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Clearly this is a heart-drenching case but none the less it is indeed a case that should be put before the court of justice – the policy here is that “one law applies to all” and regardless of social status, occupations past and previous, the amount of tax one paid or the context one may find themselves faced with – I do believe morally that JUSTICE should be allowed to run its course fully.
Vote:When discussing morals arguably in the Christian context there are divisions within the argument of “human euthanasia”, particularly between the more conservative and the more liberal groups. – I have decided “morally” to place myself on the opposing end based on my own Christian denomination but also because on the side of NZ Law. Active euthanasia is still illegal. Also, aiding, abetting or in any way assisting suicide is illegal and subject to heavy penalties – what ever the case, what ever the circumstances Sean Davison should be placed before the courts like every other Western citizen and placed on trial for his actions against NZ Law. Until there is a change in that particular law I see no reason why Mr Davison should be treated any differently.
As for the argument of “choice” in this case – since when in New Zealand did citizens have the right to choose when and how to die? How bizarre, I wasn’t informed.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Fale, I think the bigger issue is “should it be illegal”?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“he was also quite fond of euthanasia as I recall.”
No Shunda, he was fond of murder. I seriously doubt the Jews would have consented to being gassed by the Nazi’s.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“No Shunda, he was fond of murder. I seriously doubt the Jews would have consented to being gassed by the Nazi’s.”
I was not talking about the Jews ophiuchus, don’t you realise that they were using euthanasia on the handicaped and others deemed “unfit for life” before the war even started?
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
My overwhelming feeling on the death of my mother was relief that her intense suffering, caused by Breast and Bone cancer, was at an end. The fact that she was reduced to a withered, uncommunicative, scared, frightened, confused individual with advanced dementia, unable to even toilet herself, dying in a shitty nappy when she had expressed a wish to have the far more dignified death that was denied her has left, and will always leave a profound sadness within my final memories of her.
The fact that we allow our nearest and dearest to go on in suffering while we routinely carry out euthanasia on our loved pets who are suffering to the same extent, and call that behaviour humane, has always confused me. Why do we force those whose life has no future other than a slow and painful death to go on to the natural painful conclusion when we have it within ourselves to administer the humane act of ultimate kindness, and let those in this state end it on their own terms, and not to let the suffering continue.
There is a beauty in the idea of a dignified death. If you have witnessed the ugly alternative of the drawn out conclusion of the life of a loved one, as I have, perhaps those of you who find themselves on the opposite side to me in this argument may understand that.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“don’t you realise that they were using euthanasia on the handicaped and others deemed “unfit for life” before the war even started?”
I am quite aware of Hitler’s views thank you very much. However I define non-consential euthanasia as murder.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“If you have witnessed the ugly alternative of the drawn out conclusion of the life of a loved one, as I have, perhaps those of you who find themselves on the opposite side to me in this argument may understand that.”
I myself, has experienced this twice and yet I have been accused of defending Hitler.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
For Christians, I don’t think the debate is about the right to life… the fact is that for Christians life is a gift, not a right. We don’t have the right to life, and we don’t have the right to take it.
For our modern secular society though, the issue isn’t about the gift of life but about the reality that euthanasia is a slippery slope and humanity has proven that we can’t help ourselves. We are basically selfish and given the chance we will kill everyone that causes us any sort of inconvenience – be they disabled, sick, old or unplanned.
In light of that I think euthanasia has to stay illegal for the sake of all those who would otherwise be killed in the future because disabilities, sickness and old age are uneconomical. Unless of course for the sake of evolution and the progress of the human race we decide they should be killed…
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Well put slightlyrighty.
I guess there are good questions that are related to “how would it be managed”. Clearly people would have to sign off that they would want this to be the case (potentially well in advance for things like degenerative diseases), perhaps like we see for organ donors. Then it would need to be ratified by two doctors.
Regarding the wishes of close family, perhaps it should be a case of requiring their consent on when it happens. In the end you’d need four “yes’s”:
1) from the person themselves (in advance enough for them to be completely sane at the time of signing)
2) from their spouse/partner/etc.
3) from one doctor
4) from a second doctor
Seems like a fairly safe system – to make sure it’s not taken advantage of.
Vote:July 5th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
“However I define non-consential euthanasia as murder.”
It was consential, the Nazis never made families “put down” their handicaped family members they did it on their own free will, they thought they were doing the individual and societey a service.
Vote:July 6th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Posting threads become boring when they lapse into discussions of Nazi Germany, but at least if yours was to be the final post, Shunda, get it right. Your 11.43 post said family members put down handicapped members of their own free will. Perhaps at the beginning, but soon families weren’t consulted.
See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Nazi_Germany
Vote:July 6th, 2009 at 1:11 am
“Perhaps at the beginning, but soon families weren’t consulted.”
Yeah you are right. People thought it was a good idea to start with, and then the government thought it was a REALLY good idea.
Vote:We should permanently ban euthenasia to avoid this ever happening again.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Euthanasing the Handicapped in Nazi Germany started when one person asked for permission to do it and good old Adolf said yes, so out of that, state policy was born on how to deal with the handicapped.
Vote:July 6th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Brian: “Ah, no James, Hitler wasn’t a Catholic. Maybe you should look up what a Catholic is and then compare it with Hitler. See if you can spot the difference.”
Ahh yes he was Brian…and playing semantics doesn’t change that fact. He may not have acted as a Catholic should according to you but to the authority that mattered…the Vatican…..he was ok.
“Being Catholic is more than just not being ex communicated. There was a reason why many german Catholics ended up in concerntration camps, and it was a lot to do with the fact Nazism is basically un Christian. Stalin never completed his training. He become an athiest communist and turned his back on Christian ideals. (His mum was most unimpressed and never let him forget it).”
Actually Stalin never really answered the question if he was an atheist or not.It was more the power he liked and Communism was the vehical that gave him that…he may just have gone along with the “atheist” pre-requist thing….who knows?
“Communism actively pushed athiesm and closed monestries, temples, mosques and churches all over the Soviet Union. (All starting with Marx’s statement Religion is the Opium of the masses. )
Big ups for you knowing your history on Stalin and Hitler, but shame you don’t understand that murder is un Christian.”
Shame many Christians disagree with you….and have done so throughtout history.If to be a Christian is to “live as Christ” then 90% + fail to measure up….and a re-read of the old Testerment may open your eyes to the fact that God was a bloodthirsty monster who commanded his belivers to murder anyone who wasn’t part of his “in crowd.”
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Viva Sean. Viva!! May your brave stance result in draconian laws being changed around the world. Viva!
Vote: