Scott Adams on Euthanasia

November 26th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Scott Adams is the genius creator of the Dilbert strip. He wrote at the weekend:

I hope my father dies soon. …

My father, age 86, is on the final approach to the long dirt nap (to use his own phrase). His mind is 98% gone, and all he has left is hours or possibly months of hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed. I’ll spare you the details, but it’s as close to a living Hell as you can get.

If my dad were a cat, we would have put him to sleep long ago. And not once would we have looked back and thought too soon.  …

I’d like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can’t make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.

I’m a patriotic guy by nature. I love my country. But the government? Well, we just broke up.

And let me say this next part as clearly as I can.

If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won’t do that, because I fear the consequences. But I’d enjoy it, because you motherfuckers are responsible for torturing my father. Now it’s personal.

Scott’s father died a few hours after he wrote this.

While I don’t condone his anger, I empathise with it. No one should have to go through what Scott Adams and his father went through. It is inhumane.

Tags:

155 Responses to “Scott Adams on Euthanasia”

  1. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Yup, grandfather went through the same, weeks and weeks of horrific pain wanting to die.

    Sure there are concerns with Euthanasia as practised in some countries but we are not those countries. We are NZ.

    Are we really that perversely morally superior we can stand and watch while our families suffer and steadfastly deny them what they want?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 41 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    In practice what happens is they get morphine for the pain.
    As they closer to the end the dose is increased.
    Then they die.

    It’s been that way for a long long time.I have personal experience of that and I’d say many others here will have too.

    This is simply more euthanasia activism.Which ,given the morphine for pain means we don’t need yet more legislation to kill people.

    Activists cite these pain cases regularly but in practice ,euthanasia is being used for “unhappy” people.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2440086/Belgian-transsexual-Nathan-Verhelst-44-elects-die-euthanasia-botched-sex-change-operation.html

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    There are many in the medical profession who support Adam’s position and actively bring about hastened death.
    Painless dehydration, morphine administration, denial of super efforts to sustain life are all employed by many so long as no-one calls it by the “e”word.

    Sadly it could be Scott’s dad wasn’t lucky, or was he after reading Farrar’s last para.

    I wonder at the hypocrisy of those who would prosecute me in an instant if I failed my dog in suffering yet get on their high horse when the human spirit is involved.
    Pointless, interminable suffering is the same for all species.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    No one needs to go though weeks and weeks of pain prior to death. Doctors have plenty of effective medication to alleviate pain and make dying comfortable. Such emotive claptrap ignores the fact that when people have appropriate care they are comfortable. If someone has pain then it can and is removed. Suffering need not not happen when doctors and nurses simply do their job. Pain can be taken away. Palliative hospice care is amazingly good.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Danny-boy (102 comments) says:

    Kind of negates his entire argument and he just comes across as an angry idiot.

    Oh, sure, if you ignore the weeks/months/years of hell that Adams Sr. and his family have been through.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MT_Tinman (3,187 comments) says:

    I speak only for myself; As soon as I become completely useless I hope someone puts me down.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Could we please refrain from personal attacks on Scott Adams here? He has just lost a parent in hideous circumstances and I think allowances need to be made for his deep, understandable and honestly articulated grief given his bereavement, no matter what one’s personal stance on euthanasia law reform is. I would never make similar remarks when it came to the recently deceased parent of a political opponent under any circumstances.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Given that my dad’s still battling prostate cancer, I can understand where Adams is coming from, for that matter.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. muggins (3,787 comments) says:

    kowtow.

    I am aware that those patients who are in pain get increasing doses of morphine, but what about those patients who are just lying there gazing vacantly into space , leaking from every orifice, but not in any real pain?
    Should they get increasing doses of morphine as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Which ,given the morphine for pain means we don’t need yet more legislation to kill people.

    I’ve seen pain relief used in best practice palliative care, and it doesn’t prevent a lot of discomfort. Morphine is given once severe discomfort and pain is experienced, it is reactive. I’ve seen it happen up close, where each level of discomfort and pain was eventually masked with another dose of morphine, until the next time.

    And morphine doesn’t do anything about extreme lost of dignity. At one stage I found my father in an awful situation that would have been highly embarrassed him, fortunately I managed to fend off some visitors in time.

    Activists cite these pain cases regularly but in practice ,euthanasia is being used for “unhappy” people.

    It’s difficult to see why people get unhappy with being kept alive with modern medicine but denied modern dignity and freedom to choose for themselves.

    And the key question is what good does it do anyone to be made to linger on another month or two. Once they die it will have been for nothing apart from leaving bad final memories of them, something many people want to be able to avoid legally.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    “Kind of negates his entire argument and he just comes across as an angry idiot.”

    You obviously have not been through this hellish torture yet..one hopes you and yours all die quickly of a heart attack rather than lying around in your own excrement , pissing in your nappies , having large infected bed sores popped daily , while your body breaks down..your final few hours gasping for breath while your son sits on watching helplessly.

    Angry idiot I think not.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Palliative hospice care is amazingly good.

    Yes it is. But it can still be inadequate to avoid suffering. And it ignores the choice of the person directly involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    “…… It is inhumane.”

    Well.no its not – its how life here on earth ends – sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly, and yes, often painfully.
    What I find distressing in our society is the abandonment of an understanding of life after death – that our mortal death is the gateway to the afterlife. But that’s the reality of today, and the belief that pain is not worth it, so just end it all.

    I agree with what a few others have said. Palliative care is at a very high standard now, and no-one needs to suffer in their last days or hours.

    I spend quite a lot of time with those who are elderly and approaching death – I visit rest homes three times a week and spend a little time with many. Three have died in the past month; one had dementia for the past five years ans suffered panic attacks, but always came out of them happy to be alive.

    I don’t know the circumstances of Scott’s father, and I sincerely have a great degree of sympathy for him and the sufferings that his dad went through, and wish Scott well in the future. I know what it can be like; over the past five years I have stood beside the deathbed of my father, four years later my mother, and this year my older brother who had been fighting cancer for two years.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    muggins

    The activists are pushing relief from pain to open the door for euthanasia.

    When they come to vacant space gazers then maybe we can discuss that.There are an awful lot of vacant space gazers in society,people who’ve spent years smoking dope,for example,should we “off” them too?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Don, I am truly sorry for your losses. Although this year marks the twentieth anniversary of my maternal grandmother’s death on Boxing Day ’93, for which I blame the tobacco industry, given that her smoking led to her death from angina (sorry, libertarians/classical liberals- I can’t agree with you on this one.) It isn’t necessarily easier when you suddenly lose someone either, for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nigel Kearney (1,013 comments) says:

    I have no religious objection to euthanasia. But I do like being alive and would prefer to put up with pain and loss of dignity if the alternative is death. I don’t mind other people making different choices. But I do expect that the onus should be on them to make their choice absolutely clear in writing before the time comes. I should be able to go about my business knowing that nobody will ever be able to kill me just because in their opinion I would be better off dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    “What I find distressing in our society is the abandonment of an understanding of life after death – that our mortal death is the gateway to the afterlife”

    FFS!….this man is talking about his father suffering and all you religious wankers can do is take the opportunity to spout your fucking poison.

    Let’s be perfectly clear here. There is NO fucking afterlife, once you close your eyes for good that is it. There is no excuse for putting up with the pain and suffering because fucking bible bashers are of the stupid opinion that it is worth because of the afterlife.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    I’m not sure why some strangers think they get to choose *my* mode of exit. If I’m sick, and I want to go with dignity a little earlier via medical means, that’s my business, not theirs. If I’m not competent to make that decision, I’m happy for my dear wife to do so.

    So, anti-euthanasia people, you can go and get fuc*ed. My decision has got absolutely nothing to do with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MT_Tinman (3,187 comments) says:

    FFS!….this man is talking about his father suffering and all you religious wankers can do is take the opportunity to spout your fucking poison.

    Notably the same people who are anti-abortion but champion the right to own firearms, use deadly force to defend their property and have the State kill those convicted of certain crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    Big Bruv

    ‘Let’s be perfectly clear here. There is NO fucking afterlife, once you close your eyes for good that is it. ‘

    You seem to be a great authority on death for some one who has never died.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. jcuk (687 comments) says:

    Quality not Quantity

    Afterlife is just an opinion

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    But that’s the reality of today, and the belief that pain is not worth it…Palliative care is at a very high standard now, and no-one needs to suffer in their last days or hours.

    Your suggestion that unendurable pain is “worth it” reveals the sick, depraved mind of the Christian at work. Fuck compassion and humanity, this is Christianity we’re talking about!
    I rather think Mr Adams is wealthy enough to afford the finest medical care in the world, yet still the pain here was intense and unbearable, so clearly you know nothing about the subject and are just bullshitting trying to justify the unjustifiable, in the name of your evil magic pixie.

    What I find distressing in our society is the abandonment of an understanding of life after death – that our mortal death is the gateway to the afterlife.

    By all means cling to your childish fantasy when it’s your turn, but the idea that others should also be forced to suffer in this way because of your inadequacies is totally unacceptable. It’s no different from the imposition of Sharia law.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I believe it is my choice when I die, and not for someone else to decide, however, I also accept there are many instances where people are no long capable to making that decision.

    I think euthanasia should be legal, and that if a person makes a ‘living will’, whilst able to, where they outline the circumstances in which they would like assistance to exit life, then that should be adhered to.
    Such a decision then takes the onus off family members etc.

    As a society we are not really geared to conversations about death. They still evoke fear in people. Death is something we need to be more open with. I was shocked recently to know that more than 50% of elderly people that die, die alone without loved ones present (when there is an option). So often when rest homes/hospitals phone and say they are ‘going’ family requests to be kept informed, but leaves them there to die surrounded by medical equipment and strangers.

    Death needs to be discussed at intimate family levels, we have so many taboos surrounding it – which is why we keep having these same conversations about euthanasia etc. When the dying were cared for at home, they spent their last hours/days surrounded by family. People knew the process, and no one feared it like they do today.

    To hold someones hand as they exit this world is the greatest privilege you can have. I don’t care how I die, as long as there is someone holding my hand at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. radvad (765 comments) says:

    It seems Mr Adams is the one wanting to make the decision. This opens a whole can of worms.

    I am torn by this issue. As a classical liberal I support freedom of choice. However my experiences of losing firstly a daughter to a long term cancer, and then my wife to MND I now have many reservations. I admit there were times (very fleeting thankfully) when I wished both would die quickly. The reason was totally selfish, I wanted to be able to get on with my life. I did not like thinking like that but also realised I would be no different to most, if not all others in similar situations. I am glad euthanasia was not an option for my daughter as she could have felt pressure to choose it so as not to be a “nuisance”. This pressure, subtle or otherwise, could come for all sorts of reasons eg convenience, inheritance etc.

    My wife totally managed her situation. We had often discussed the prospect of her stopping “food” (mush through a tube). We agreed to this as long as she was free to change her mind at any stage. She knew her body. After a couple of false starts she fasted for 3 days and then died quietly, with dignity and in her own time. She is my hero.

    My experiences and observations highlight just some of the many issues and views surrounding euthanasia. All these, and those who hold them, should be listened to and treated with respect. Emotional appeals, anger and name calling do not encourage a free discussion/debate of this very complex issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney (3,070) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 10:07 am

    I agree Wat, and it is not just the pain, there is the indignity of losing control of one’s body functions etc, and for what? It is not as though they are going to get better and laugh about it later. This is the end of life, the result is always going to be the same. If they can be spared just some of the pain, just be able to retain a bit of that dignity, then surely if that is what they want, then it should be that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    For those who understand.

    In the early hours the Lord gave me a glimpse of the New Jerusalem. a spectacularly bright brilliance.

    This morning I went to early prayer meeting and a reading came out from the book of Daniel concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue described as extraordinary in brightness.

    Praise God, a confirmation of my own dream.

    I share this to those who believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Judith, you may well be correct. In the context of Oregon, it is significant that people can gain access to a cache of potentially lethal drugs in the context of assisted suicide, which some of them choose to use but others do not. Although, to be clear, it is not really religious social conservatives blocking access to this option, it is far more influential medical practitioners organisations, who have far greater moral authority, practical expertise and credibility on this issue. Having some interest in this issue due to past cardiovascular and cancer experiences in my extended family and being a political commentator, from what I can see, medical groups are the real gatekeepers in this context.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Emotional appeals, anger and name calling do not encourage a free discussion/debate of this very complex issue.

    Thank you, radvad.

    I must add that appeals to invisible magic pixies also have no place in the discussion. Or perhaps I should short-circuit them by stating that my invisible magic pixie is cool with euthenasia.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nukuleka (327 comments) says:

    Life as a human being is not a bunch of roses and is often ‘inhumane’. I have recently lost my 40 year old son in a sudden and unexpected death. That is cruel and inhumane.Today I learnt of the suicide of a fine, healthy 60 year old with everything to live for, leaving behind a grieving partner, children and grandchildren. That is cruel and inhumane. Every day unborn children are wrenched from their mothers’ wombs and butchered. That is cruel and inhumane.

    Life is full of shit and it’s about time people realised this. We all die and some of us die sad and inhumane deaths.

    We don’t need further cruelty and inhumanity in the guise of ‘assisted suicide’. Once the door is opened there will be no closing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Added to which, let’s also recognise that some opponents of euthanasia have been through the deep pain and ordeal of losing a loved one themselves. I’d like to hear from those people about how their experiences have affected their philosophical objections to euthanasia/assisted suicide. Please, let’s try to have a civil dialogue on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    The terminally sick person is going to die. The only issue is timing.

    If we want them to hang around longer, isn’t that a selfish desire on our part, too, just as much as a selfish desire could be for someone to go sooner?

    Euthanasia should be an *option* under controlled conditions. Are there negatives? Room for abuse? Sure. But that’s true of all human systems. Do we still have a legal system, even though some judges may be corrupt? Do we have a Police force, even though some Police may abuse their power?

    Of course.

    Why?

    The good outweighs the bad, IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    We don’t need further cruelty and inhumanity in the guise of ‘assisted suicide’.

    I don’t think you’ve thought this one through.

    Perhaps you should read the opening post again.

    Your hard’n’fast ban is thoroughly cruel and inhumane.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘Your hard’n’fast ban is thoroughly cruel and inhumane.’

    Politically predictable. The govt would not leave the power of attorney to families. They would exploit it and take control over who lives and dies.

    The govt would like the issue to become so emotive in the public arena they could legalise assisted suicide to their own policies.

    Paula Bennett’s sterilisation of beneficiaries is the beginning.

    That’s how govt’s roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Chardonnay
    See my post above. However I am not an opponent of euthanasia but I maintain we should be very very careful with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    Plenty of comments here about management of pain in terminal illness.

    A couple of observations:

    It is not all about pain, what about the significant mental suffering for some.

    We are currently being handed copious news and opinion on mens violence against women and that abuse includes mental and behavoral abuse along with physical.
    What then about the intensly personal suffering to be endured by a termianally ill patient who may have their pain well managed but are still either in a very challenged state as to should they be still here or not or are more likely to be in an almost total coma from the meds required to “alleviate their pain’.
    Both constitute in my mind, abuse.

    I have had personal association with people who because they set about dealing with an end to their life on their terms early enough, managed to accumulate sufficient drug and keep their intentions from their treatment providers and in a couple of cases from their loved ones.

    On another angle, during a rational discussion among friends one evening, one of us claimed he had it sorted.
    He was a category 3 Arms licence and possessed a colt magnum revolver and that was his solution.
    The others present quickly pointed out it was very likely he;
    Would not remember where the key to his gunsafe was,
    Would be unable to access the weapon let alone load it,
    and thirdly holding it and pulling the trigger could well be physically beyond him.

    It is not simple and it is for some, intensly personal and in the shadow of the recent high profile debate on limited resources being removed from the aged and redirected to the young surely it should be adressed.
    Laudable as it is, and it should be available to those who desire it, palliative care does not come cheap.
    There are savings there, I would support.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    The terminally sick person is going to die. The only issue is timing.

    Indeed.

    Those who oppose euthenasia because of their fake “Christianity” might acquire some shred of credibility if they equally opposed today’s medicines, which artificially prolong life in defiance of the evil magic pixie’s plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    In practice what happens is they get morphine for the pain.
    As they closer to the end the dose is increased.
    Then they die.

    I have personal experience of that…

    Oh, I’m pretty sure you haven’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Wat
    You seem to bring Christianity into this more than anyone else.
    All views should be able to be advanced regardless of how silly/stupid/evil you may consider them.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ChardonnayGuy (779) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 10:22 am

    I am not sure if this is the example you want, but I was ‘next of kin’ for my great Aunt, who at 96 suffered a fall. She was put on life-support and I was asked to make the decision regarding turning it off. They said she would never be the same, and would be bed ridden and maybe in a coma for the rest of her life.

    She was a wonderful person, whilst she had slowed down physically, her mind was still as sharp as a pin. She had never married but had great life, had been a pen pal of Sir George Bernard Shaw as a young girl, and a secretary to one of our Prime Ministers. She had some great stories to tell.

    I told them to turn the machines off. She would not have wanted to live as a vegetable. I held her hand and stroked her brow. They turned the machine off, and that heart monitor kept beating. 24 hours later she opened her eyes and said ” **** get me a cuppa dear”…. she then swore at the nurse for fussing around her. She lived another three years (making the medical staffs lives misery, but giving me a great many laughs). She died just before her 100th birthday sadly, because she was looking forward to getting a telegram from the Queen and telling her where to stick it (she was a Republican an atheist and a member of the skeptics society ). She also spent those last years telling me I should have put a pillow over her face. She hated that there was no one left alive that she knew, other than me (even my father, her nephew had died before her). She didn’t want to live.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    @ wikiriwhs business 10 15.

    It is already in our public health system.
    In excess of 80 years old there are protocols in place that will likely deny IV blood thinners to stroke victims that are essential to maximise recovery.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    We can only be truly human if we can kill mom and dad!

    May I remind you of the oath of Hippocrates, that’s from 2500 ago:

    will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    May I remind you of the oath of Hippocrates, that’s from 2500 ago:

    Well, you could, but what Hippocrates believed is not what I believe, so I’m not sure why you feel he is the final authority on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    Like a lot of matters in the culture wars, the assumptions of both sides leave little room for accomodation. It’s therefore hard to have a reasoned debate because in any debate each sides talks past the other. It’s not a debate about euthanasia, per se, but a debate about the different outlooks that lead to your views on euthanasia.

    For example, pro-life advocates will often point out to examples of how procedural safeguards for voluntary euthansia don’t work as a rationale. They will point to claimed abuses in the Netherlands and Oregon and say that it’s an inevitability that we would follow. However, this is beside the point because, at the end of the day, most pro-lifers would oppose voluntary euthanasia even if there was (somehow) an iron-clad guarantee that all decisions to terminate would be made with consent free of undue influence.

    But pro-choice advocates also often dodge the logical implications of their own assumptions. Why allow a competent somebody suffering the torment of an unbearable physical ailment to terminate but deny it to a competent somebody suffering an unbearable mental ailment? If somebody can make such an irrevocable decision to alienate their very life, why not to do some other irrevocable thing – like sell themselves into servitude? If you grant that people have absolute dominion over their own lives, then what’s a non-arbitrary limiting principle? Do you simply draw the boundary at non-aggression? Will you stand by that?

    There is an irresolvable divide about how we fundamentally view human life. Because it’s irresolvable, we focus on marginal cases and pathos in an attempt to viscerally shock people into supporting our worldview or shrinking from theirs. Accordingly, it is very hard to have a civil dialogue on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Peter: Well, you could, but what Hippocrates believed is not what I believe, so I’m not sure why you feel he is the final authority on this issue.

    I’m just reminding you that killing people was all the rage before Greek civilisation started. It’s not new. It’s what the barbarians did. It’s what the Nazis did. It’s not a step forward, or some kind of enlightenment, if you would think that. It’s a step backward into barbarity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Liam Hehir: Why allow a competent somebody suffering the torment of an unbearable physical ailment to terminate

    That’s not what the discussion is about. Someone will have to do the killing Liam. The discussion is do we want to grant that to doctors? Do doctors have a say in this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Bob (497 comments) says:

    Before she retired my wife was a nurse in charge of the hospital section of an old peoples home. She used to come home with sad tales. She had patients who wanted to die. They would have chosen euthanasia if it had been allowed. For example one man had stomach cancer. The cancer had grown into a large ball sticking out of his stomach while he couldn’t take food and water and ended looking like a concentration camp victim. Another patient a lady of 90 had gangrene in her legs. Her feet and lower parts of her legs were amputated. At the same time she was nearly blind and deaf incapable of doing anything more than lying on a bed. Then as the gangrene spread further she was to be taken back for surgery. My wife had strong empathy for her patients and sometimes came home quite upset. What did upset her was seeing patients who wanted to die contract infections and have other staff give them antibiotics. She preferred to withhold treatment and let them die. That of course was people close to death anyway.

    The prolife people and religions go on about the pain relief measures available and the ability to make people comfortable. But often it is not just physical pain but mental pain. That is why some people with no quality of life left just want to die. By all means do everything you can for people near the end of their lives but allow those who want die with dignity in their own time. The religions with their fixed principles talking about life being sacred are a pain in the neck only making things worse for people.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    “While I don’t condone his anger,”

    I do, I totally condone it.

    The only problem is that Scott has partially misplaced his anger. His anger should be directed at religion first and then the politicians.
    It is because of the poison that is religion that Scott’s father had to suffer, this and gutless politicians who are not brave enough to tell the ever decreasing number of sky fairy followers that their stupid beliefs matter.

    Religion deserves every ounce of abuse that comes it’s way, if ever there was an example of it’s outright evilness then this is it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    I’m just reminding you that killing people was all the rage before Greek civilisation started. It’s not new. It’s what the barbarians did. It’s what the Nazis did. It’s not a step forward, or some kind of enlightenment, if you would think that. It’s a step backward into barbarity.

    What twisted logic.

    We’re not advocating killing healthy people. We’re advocating terminally ill people get to choose the timing of *their own* death in order to prevent unnecessary mental and physical suffering.

    They will die. They will die soon. There is nothing that can be done to stop it. All we’re talking about is the mode of exit. With grace vs anguish.

    I choose grace.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    @Berend – FWIW I am personally against voluntary euthanasia and I agree with the ethical position of medical associations both here and internationally. However, there other means in which euthanasia could be adminstered and, in any event, a conclusive answer to the question would resolve the reasons and continued validity of the ethical proscription. My view is that we – as a civilisation – are at an impasse on that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Albert_Ross (293 comments) says:

    Seems to me the only way to prove that you seek to kill somebody because you love them and want to end their suffering, rather than because you are suffering personal inconvenience and want their money, is to do it – and then willingly face the legal consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Judith, thank you for a deeply moving example of exactly what I mean. Let’s try to get past the rhetoric and see what personal experience of losing a loved one contributes to this situation. For example, have any of the anti-euthanasia contributors used hospice services in the context of their loved ones? If so, what was their experience of this alternative form of personalised care and death with dignity like?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Liam Hehir: My view is that we – as a civilisation – are at an impasse on that point.

    We’re not. We came from the barbarians who did exactly what is being proposed.

    Peter: We’re not advocating killing healthy people.

    Ah right, we’re not proposing killing people who suffer just mentally! Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    After watching Mum die by inches over a year I can fully understand Scott Adams position.

    No one who has ever watched a parent die in a slow and protracted manner ever wants to see anyone else go through that again.

    The issue for me is that the last memories of my mother are those of the minutes just before her death…they aren’t pretty…and actually still bring tears to my eyes to discuss it.

    I am sure my mother would have wanted to to be remembered in a far nicer fashion by those closest to her. That vision haunts me to this day.

    I don’t know anyone who has witnessed his who remains opposed ti euthanasia.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. MT_Tinman (3,187 comments) says:

    Big Bruv 11:24, The tick-thingy won’t work for me so I post this to state I agree with you completely.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @wkikiriwis business

    “You seem to be a great authority on death for some one who has never died.”

    ———————–

    And you are an authority because?

    Our consciousness ceases to exist when our body dies. If you had studied physics, you might have a better chance of understanding this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @berend

    “Ah right, we’re not proposing killing people who suffer just mentally! Yeah right.”

    ——————

    Only an idiot can casually dismiss the pain that is caused by mental illness.

    Mental pain can be just as unbearable as physical pain.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    @Berend – I think it’s pretty clear that some people take the same view as the (unfairly) maligned Epicureans that the meaning of life is happiness and that the greatest happiness comes from the avoidance of pain. However, it’s notable that euthanasia was also supported by some of the Stoics. I would not call either the Epicureans or the Stoics barbarians.

    I personally have a lot of sympathy for Stoicism – though my views are also transfused with certain Judaic ideas about the sanctity of human life. This fusion once formed part of our common culture. However, it does not do so any longer.

    So I stand by my point that the contending arguments originate from different spaces and cannot be reconcilled.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    @Whaleoil,

    Fortunately, I have never been in that situation with a parent. My consolations and sympathy. However, I do know people who have and have. Respectfully, I would put it to you that how you will react to an experience like that depends very much on your philosophy of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    While I don’t condone his anger, I empathise with it.

    That’s a weird thing to write – not condoning a feeling. What’s the point of that? How someone feels isn’t a thing to be condoned or not – actions are the domain of condemnation, not feelings. To not condone something is to not accept, forgive or overlook it and to hold someone to blame for it.

    It is to say that Adams has no right to feel angry about something which is just silly.

    One might not share, understand or have similar feelings – but if so one also wouldn’t empathise with feelings one finds inappropriate.

    It’s a very odd thing to write and I suspect a mistaken use of the word condone.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    radvad,

    You seem to bring Christianity into this more than anyone else.

    I suggest you re-read the thread.

    However, it is a fact that most opposition to assisted suicide typically comes from those who claim to be acting in accordance with the wishes of an evil magic pixie, even when they are too mealy-mouthed to be up-front about it.

    All views should be able to be advanced regardless of how silly/stupid/evil you may consider them

    Agreed. However, it doesn’t prevent them from being silly/stupid/evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    The meaning I took from DPF’s post is that he empathises with Adams’ anger, but does not agree with the manner in which it is expressed – which is not conducive to a civil discussion on the matter.

    This blog has a clear slant on cultural matters – but it is also pretty good at allowing that people who disagree aren’t monsters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    On the subject of euthanasia I was discussing this very topic with a daughter of a doctor recently where I mentioned I suspect my ailing Grandmother may have been given a wee too much morphine accidentally on purpose on the night of her death.

    And we both suspect, she from what she had discussed with her father on the topic, that there’s considerable euthanasia already practised in New Zealand and we discussed the merits of leaving it as is – where there’s an unspoken tacit agreement that doctors might use their judgement in delivering pain killers and purposefully over-prescribe on occasion.

    I think New Zealand’s allowance of doctors writing their own patients death certificates is quiet legal acknowledgement this happens, for if authority was set against it no doctor would be permitted to certify their own patients cause of death.

    On the face of it it is dangerous and risks situations of a doctor running amok and yet many fear a legal route threatens turning a right to die into a duty to die.

    It is an unpleasant topic, but I think it is a national discussion we ought have.

    Personally, though there is no history of senility in my family, I could well imagine wanting to top myself if life became a burden and as much as I think I’d have no care for events after my death I wouldn’t want to make a mess for someone else to clean up and believe I should have a legal, tidy and safe for others option.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘If you had studied physics, you might have a better chance of understanding this.’

    You do know there are more scientists who believe in intelligent design than Darwinism.

    But not going to be drawn into that debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    Why these demands for civility as if that’s the measure of the argument?

    Like Adams, some people are now tired of being civil and have moved onto anger as an entirely justified response to people who’s views mean that they, or their loved ones, may be forced, by the state, to suffer unnecessary physical and mental torture, against their will, for no other reason than these other people aren’t “comfortable” with the idea of euthanasia.

    F*ck them. Feel that anger? Good.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    poor old bruv.

    Can’t keep his hate and bile away from any topic.

    As Liam has said, one’s attitude to this type of thing is dependent on our own philosophy of life.
    I totally accept the right of anyone to hold whatever view they wish. Others don’t have to agree with it.
    In the case that Bob quoted about an elderly person having limbs amputated – to me this is taking exptraordinay measure to preserve life. I agree that it would have been better to make the patient comfortable and let nature take its course.

    In my mum’s case, she had had a small heart attack a couple of years previous and was on the drug warferin. She had a fall and recieved a severe blow to her head which caused a cerebral haemorhage – I found her lying on the floor in a semi concious state. We got her to hospital and the medical team checked her out. They wanted to take her to Waikato hospital and operate. My brothers and sisters and I asked what the likely outcome of the operation would be, and they said a 10% chance of full recovery, but most likely a greatly reduced life, and possibly a vegetative state, but in any event a totally dependent life. Without treatment, she would probably die within 24 hours. Mum had often spoken about not wanting to have extra-ordinary means to prolong her life, so we told the medics that unless there was at least a 30% chance of survival, to not proceed.
    We made mum comfortable – she died 10 hours later.
    It is not necessary or even moral IMO to maintain life by extra-ordinary means. I suppose the debate then becomes, what extent qualify as extra-ordinary means ?
    Becomes pretty subjective again , doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Wat
    “However, it doesn’t prevent them from being silly/stupid/evil.”

    Agreed but that is only subjective. Equally, others might view your opinions in similar fashion and be quite entitled to.

    I am intrigued though. You claim there is no god or pixie or whatever. However you claim this pixie, that supposedly does not exist, to be evil.
    Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business (2,288) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    ‘If you had studied physics, you might have a better chance of understanding this.’

    You do know there are more scientists who believe in intelligent design than Darwinism.

    But not going to be drawn into that debate.

    Because your statement is even more off this planet than most of your posts

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘Because your statement is even more off this planet than most of your posts’

    Physics are from God because He is the great physicist.

    Where Einstein went wrong is that he wanted to know God’s mind.

    God wants us to know His heart.

    John 3.16.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    “F*ck them. Feel that anger? Good.” – Peter

    “How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.” – Marcus Aurelius

    Anger does make you feel good. It comforts you – but it is a false comfort. You get angry, they get angry – in the end, it only makes things worse. Equanimity is harder but it’s more productive. It will make you happier in the long run.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    I don’t have a problem with cases like Mr Adams Snr where he made a clear statement and his death was inevitable. But the recent cases in Europe where healthy people are able to be euthanized because of iffy mental anguish claims make me think again. If there is to be legal euthanasia then the controls must be very strict and no creep tolerated.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @wikiriwhis business

    “You do know there are more scientists who believe in intelligent design than Darwinism.”

    ———————

    This statement is completely untrue, and speaks directly to your lack of knowledge in this area.

    Darwinist evolution is an observable and reproducible phenomena. You can set up experiments and watch it happen in the lab.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘Darwinist evolution is an observable and reproducible phenomena.’

    There was never a missing link.

    And that’s all I’ll say about that and life is still a box of chocolates. Which the PC squad is trying to weed out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    RichardX (119) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    wikiriwhis business (2,288) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    ‘If you had studied physics, you might have a better chance of understanding this.’

    You do know there are more scientists who believe in intelligent design than Darwinism.

    But not going to be drawn into that debate.
    ——————————————————————–
    Because your statement is even more off this planet than most of your posts

    ——————————————————————–

    Hardly – bumble bees defy the laws of physics.

    Who’s to say that God can’t – and can’t defy all the laws of science? Who’s to say we know all sciences anyway?

    You are taking scientists for being more ignorant than yourself! “cool”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    Harriet – I am out of here but bumblebees only defy the laws of aerodynamics if you assume they operate according to the same principles as fixed wing aircraft. In fact, bumblebees are living creatures whose wings can twist.

    I agree that our means of comprehending the universe through materialism are limited. However, that example, while poetic, is incorrect.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    bumble bees defy the laws of physics

    No they don’t, this is one of those odd little urban myths that is perpetuated by tradition and people who erroneously enjoy the poetry of it’s support.

    Here’s an interesting discussion about the origin of the myth.

    As it happens how bumble bees fly is well understood by modern engineers and it is to do with the speed at which they move their wings – a detail quite easily over-looked by someone doing calculations in the 1930’s (when the myth arose) – and the manner in which they move which is more akin to a helicopter than aeroplane – another fact easily over-looked by pre-1940’s (and pre-helicopter) calculations.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    Who’s to say that God can’t – and can’t defy all the laws of science?

    Exactly. Science is about trying to understand the natural world in terms of natural processes. On the other hand, gods are supernatural beings. That’s why religion has no place in the science classroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    SGA (331) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    @Harriet

    Who’s to say that God can’t – and can’t defy all the laws of science?[ Who’s to say we know all sciences anyway?]

    Exactly. Science is about trying to understand the natural world in terms of natural processes. On the other hand, gods are supernatural beings. That’s why religion has no place in the science classroom.

    ————————–

    Re-read what you’ve just written.

    Science wouldn’t discount that the ‘supernatural’ is not, and will not ever be a science.

    Scientists even treat it exactly the same way that they currently treat other sciences in general – buy getting an hypothesis and then gathering evidence to support and/or discount it.

    Scientists don’t know of all the sciences that could ever exist. And that may well be why such a huge proportion of scientists also have faith in God – an undiscovered future possable science!

    Only the very stupid would suggest that religion has no place whatsoever in the science classroom!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Odakyu-sen (655 comments) says:

    A man devotes so much thought, resources and energy towards living; perhaps he ought to devote a little more towards dying.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,065) Says:
    November 26th, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Hardly – bumble bees defy the laws of physics.

    Ignorant as well as intellectually dishonest

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    http://www.livescience.com/33075-how-bees-fly.html

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/bumblebee-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….A man devotes so much thought, resources and energy towards living; perhaps he ought to devote a little more towards dying….”

    Well put.

    Science has stuff all understanding of dead matter.

    And besides that – some people think that death by illness is a recent invention.

    A sad unhappy bunch really.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    I don’t have a problem with cases like Mr Adams Snr where he made a clear statement and his death was inevitable. But the recent cases in Europe where healthy people are able to be euthanized because of iffy mental anguish claims make me think again. If there is to be legal euthanasia then the controls must be very strict and no creep tolerated.

    Margaret Somerville is a bioethicist of international reputation. In 2010, she wrote,

    Although the need for euthanasia to relieve pain and suffering is the justification given, and the one the public accepts in supporting its legalization, research shows that dying people request euthanasia far more frequently because of fear of social isolation and of being a burden on others, than pain.

    So, should avoiding loneliness or being a burden count as a sufficient justification? Recently, some pro-euthanasia advocates have gone further, arguing that respect for people’s rights to autonomy and self-determination means competent adults have a right to die at a time of their choosing, and the state has no right to prevent them from doing so. In other words, if euthanasia were legalized, the state has no right to require a justification for its use by competent, freely consenting adults.

    For example, they believe an elderly couple, where the husband is seriously ill and the wife healthy, should be allowed to carry out their suicide pact. As Ruth von Fuchs, head of the Right to Die Society of Canada, stated, “Life is not an obligation.” But although Ms. von Fuchs thought the wife should have an unfettered right to assisted suicide, she argued that it would allow her to avoid the suffering, grief, and loneliness associated with losing her husband – that is, she articulated a justification. We can see this same trend toward not requiring a justification – or, at least, nothing more than that’s what a competent person over a certain age wants to do – in the Netherlands.

    Last month, a group of older Dutch academics and politicians launched a petition in support of assisted suicide for the over-70s who “consider their lives complete” and want to die. They quickly attracted more than 100,000 signatures, far more than needed to get the issue debated in the Dutch parliament. The Netherlands’ 30-year experience with euthanasia shows clearly the rapid expansion, in practice, of what is seen as an acceptable justification for euthanasia. [Somerville concluded,] Initially, euthanasia was limited to terminally ill, competent adults, with unrelievable pain and suffering, who repeatedly asked for euthanasia and gave their informed consent to it.

    Now, none of those requirements necessarily applies, in some cases not even in theory and, in others, not in practice. For instance, parents of severely disabled babies can request euthanasia for them, 12- to 16-year-olds can obtain euthanasia with parental consent, and those over 16 can give their own consent. More than 500 deaths a year, where the adult was incompetent or consent not obtained, result from euthanasia. And late middle-aged men (a group at increased risk for suicide) may be using it as a substitute for suicide. Indeed, one of the people responsible for shepherding through the legislation legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands recently admitted publicly that doing so had been a serious mistake, because, he said, once legalized, euthanasia cannot be controlled. In other words, justifications for it expand greatly, even to the extent that simply a personal preference “to be dead” will suffice.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    And then there is the future healthcare cost debate Fletch.

    “Christians are the ones who cost the most in aged healthcare costs – simply because they refuse to die. Bedridden, they do nothing else at all whatsoever – other than to refuse to die.”

    It’s a very steep slippery slope into totalatarianism and government control over all life.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    On the other hand, gods are supernatural beings. That’s why religion has no place in the science classroom.

    Science can only explain things that are already there. It can’t answer any of the big questions. As C.S Lewis put it in Mere Christianity

    You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave.

    Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, “I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw soand-so,” or, “I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did soand-so.” Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science— and a very useful and necessary job it is too.

    But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes—something of a different kind—this is not a scientific question. If there is “Something Behind,” then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, “Why is there a universe?” “Why does it go on as it does?” “Has it any meaning?” would remain just as they were?

    C. S. Lewis (2009-06-14T22:00:00+00:00). Mere Christianity (Kindle Locations 334-345). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Thanks for that Fletch. That’s the best I’ve seen it put. I’ve saved that. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    Fletch quotes C.S. Lewis at 2:00 pm

    But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes—something of a different kind—this is not a scientific question.

    Which is not much different from what I said. So, I repeat, this is why religion does not belong in a science classroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    “Has it any meaning?” cannot be answered by science but it is a meaningless question
    Is a meaning required for life?

    We are getting off topic here though

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    RichardX at 2:18 pm

    We are getting off topic here though

    Point taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    radvad,

    I am intrigued though. You claim there is no god or pixie or whatever. However you claim this pixie, that supposedly does not exist, to be evil.

    I don’t see the mystery.

    Voldemort in the Harry Potter books/films is evil, yet in saying that I’m not suggesting that the character is real.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    I feel ill. What can the matter be?
    I’d ask God to have pity on me,
    But I turn to the one I know, and say:
    Come, Death, and carry me away.

    Ah me, sweet Death, you are the only god
    Who comes as a servant when he is called, you
    Listen then to this sound I make, it is sharp,
    Come Death. Do not be slow.

    -Stevie Smith, died of a brain tumour

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    I vote no to allowing third parties the right to end the lives of other people. It’s simply not your call.

    I get sick of people saying this is about religion. I like to point out that, if I was an atheist, I would feel all the more strongly about this issue. I believe that there is a life after this one, so even if someone is killed by another person, there is hope for their soul. But for atheists, there is nothing. If you take a life, then that life is over and there is nothing afterwards. It becomes even more morally reprehensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    You don’t understand atheism, Blair.

    Given there is nothing beyond death, there is nothing to know, therefore nothing to regret or miss.

    The point here is that life has become unliveable to the point where a pleasant and dignified death is *preferable* to a drawn out torture. The choice is not between life and death. The person will die soon, regardless. It’s simply the manner and timing of the inevitable cessation of life, regardless of belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    Theres two sides of the argument here, if it were you in that situation would you want to be kept alive? or given the right to die. It sounds horrible but if the patient has no quality of life left then surely they should be allowed to die as opposed to being kept alive until they die naturally.
    I don’t know if I’d go as far as ending it for someone in those circumstances but certainly wouldn’t be doing anything to prolong their lives if I knew it wasn’t what they would have wanted.

    Big Blouse
    This is not about religion so enough of your bigoted religous hate rave.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Odakyu-sen (655 comments) says:

    “Assuming that time extends infinitely backwards and infinitely forwards, since the infinite past did not concern you before you were born, the infinite future shall not concern you after you are dead.” –anon

    Apologies for getting off topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Rowan

    Of course it is about religion. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it says everything about you.

    Are you really that scared that your faith might not stand the test.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    One has to be careful when they start involving science and religion.

    If there is a God, how do you not know it is his will that science can intervene and end life and suffering?

    It appears to me that many of these people who have to die long lingering and undignified deaths, would have died sometime before hand, had science not intervened. At what point do the religious say “this is the will of god” and when it isn’t?

    Does God want a person to have radiation treatment, even though it is a scientific invention, and if so, then how do they know that God doesn’t want methods of allowing a person to die with dignity to be used, as well? Just how far does the justification go?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Darwinist evolution is an observable and reproducible phenomena. You can set up experiments and watch it happen in the lab.

    Who are you trying to kid? Kids? It has never been observed & has never been reproduced. The silliest thing I’ve read all day.

    And, on the thread topic, it’s sad that one has to witness a loved deteriorate ever so slowly. I saw, & was part of the care team, for my grandmother who had dementia and also witnessed an uncle live painfully for many years with diabetes making him go blind & lose most of one leg & the lower half of the other…..but that’s life, for some. They were brave & in my grandmothers case, obliviously happy & widely loved. Who could murder someone like that? Or anyone like that? The writer sounds like a soft cock…..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    No Blouse
    The discussion is actually about euthenasia, religous views aside. The fact that you try and make it about religion in order to express your hatred of the views of others says you are one sad individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    It is clearly about religion for some people, but that doesn’t mean it’s about religion for all religious or semi religious people.

    If you don’t believe in life after death then a few weeks sooner or later won’t matter much, some will decide they’d prefer not to suffer too much for too long.

    If you do believe in life after death then euthanasia can simply be a choice of timing of death, it needn’t make any difference to a belief about what happens afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘“Christians are the ones who cost the most in aged healthcare costs – simply because they refuse to die’

    Because Christianity will not die. The risen Lord lives

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Dazzaman

    “Who are you trying to kid? Kids? It has never been observed & has never been reproduced. The silliest thing I’ve read all day.”

    —————————

    I cannot tell if you’re a genuine idiot or if you are simply pretending to be one on the Internet.

    Evolution doesn’t require faith. It’s an observable and reproducible phenomena.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘It’s a very steep slippery slope into totalatarianism and government control over all life.’

    Paula Bennett is working hard on this right now. She’s scaring over 30’s to Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Rowan

    I am forced to come to the conclusion that you are a fucking idiot. That being the case then I might have to walk you through it.

    Right Rowan, I hope you are sitting comfortably, lets begin. Nearly all of those who object to euthanasia do so based on religious grounds. People like Don the denier make things worse because he cannot resist a chance to spread his own particular brand of bile.

    The result of that religious interference is that many people across the world are forced to suffer because of somebody else’s religious beliefs. Because you are indeed stupid you are not able to see that you cannot have a debate about euthanasia without confronting the elephant in the room that is religion. I would wager a lot of money that not one of those religious fools would allow their pet dog to suffer in agony yet because of the scribble in a book of fiction they think that they have a right to tell others how they should deal with a painful death.

    You might be used to people playing nice around religion Rowan but I am not one of those people. All religion is evil, all religion deserves to me mocked, derided and abused at every opportunity, I will not miss any one of those chances.

    Having said that , I am quite happy to leave religious people alone if they agree to leave me alone. Of course the problem with that is that so many of them (Don the Denier, and the thoroughly evil Lucia being two classic examples) simply cannot do so. They honestly believe that their book of fiction allows them the right to interfere in my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    There would be tens of thousands of Christians in this country who have encountered the living Spirit of their God directly in their and others lives and who would argue for their right to live out a full life here even if others may feel it to be wasted, distressing or painful. I am one of them, and would not welcome anyone ‘turning off the machine’. I have nursed my late wife through a long terminal cancer and hospice care made her more comfortable at times than the living.

    As a society we may need to compromise: it may be possible to allow some people to opt out of life or be ‘put down’ if that is wholly consistent with their beliefs. Already medical people recognise the right for patients to refuse treatment and this was an issue when palliative surgery was required; my wife could die quickly and horribly from a blocked cancerous bowel in a secluded part of the hospital or tough out her remaining time after a couple of ops. She chose the latter.

    I believe life should terminate naturally and in that I include regular judgmental decisions that medical people make as to suitability of treatment. My father had pneumonia along with severe complications of diabetes that would naturally have been terminal and the decision was made (not with any input from the family) to not treat the pneumonia. The living don’t have the right to expect the dying to have their remaining time prolonged to relieve survivors anguish.

    Putting down or opting out are different from physical expiry unless mental expiry is lumped in with bodily. The right for others to decide to terminate a life has been reserved previously as punishment for crime. Voluntary opting out while of sound mind is easier to justify than being denied life while not of sound mind. Even in advanced alzheimers I have known my mother to ‘come alive’ in prayer while otherwise she was a vegetable. It is very difficult to say than she had ‘no quality’ of life in her last years even if she did not know who we were. Should she have made a living direction that she was to be terminated if she lost her faculties that way? Who is to execute such a deed? Assisted suicide might be permissible but active termination should not be considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    F… of Blouse
    My views on Euthenasia have nothing to do with religion, you are just a troll like Kea trying to force others to accept your view of atheism. I am not bible-bashing religion onto you or anyone else on KB but you are just an f..wit troll who abuses others based on their beliefs. Why don’t you practise what you preach and leave others alone, I don’t see any posts here initiated by religous believers trying to change your views, just retards like you and Kea pouring out your bigoted hate columns on why religion is ‘evil’
    You are a pathetic troll go get a life!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    It is not about a contest between science and religion. Science is a process. It is silent on ethics – it has been used for to advance great humanitarian purposes and great humanitarian catastrophes alike.

    The major religions – or at least their orthodox expressions – tend to frown upon suicide but for different reasons. In the Abrahamic faiths the reason generally relates to the idea that human life is exceptional, elevated above animal life and morally inviolable. Hinduism and Buddhism reject suicide on more pacifist grounds. However, there have always been religions – and sects of the major religions – which have not prohibited suicide.

    The root of the problem relates to a contest of ethics. An increasing number of people (probably a majority) subsribe to a mild Epicurean Liberalism. Minimising pain and suffering is the highest ideal and so if the distress of living outweighs the possibilities for comfort then suicide is considered justfied.

    That’s at odds with the receding ethic that holds that while we should try to alleviate suffering, it is wrong to respond by eliminating the suffering person. Human life too important a dignity, even when it is agonised, to terminated in the same manner as, say, a lame horse. You can see why such an ethic might be rooted in religious belief but it isn’t necessarily. Kant, for example, argued that because human life is special it is an end unto itself. No life should be treated as a means to any other ends and that injunction applies to how we see our own selves.

    The problem is that the competing worldviews are incompatible and clearly unintelligble to each other. As a result, any dialogue on the matter will necessarily involve furrowed brows, uncomprehension and moral preeposturing by both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    A good start towards that would be for each side to assume good faith in the arguments made by the other.

    However, the stakes are too high and people’s views are too incompatible. You just inevitably end up with arguments devolving into ridicule and allegations of ulterior motives.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Rowan.

    “My views on Euthenasia (sic) have nothing to do with religion”

    Goodness me!… that little gem from you only proves my assertion that you’re an idiot.

    Had you used the normal religious line in defending your position then I could have allowed you a little latitude due to what I can only assume to have been decades of lies fed to you by religious “leaders”.

    So as it stands Rowan, you want others to suffer because the thought of euthanasia makes you feel a little off colour.

    I guess that makes you one hell of a guy. Fucking glad I don’t know you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    F…off Blouse
    You don’t get to speak for others and tell them what they should or shouldn’t believe.
    There are a number of arguments for and against euthenasia and religion reasons is only one argument.
    Don’t tell me what I think, or what I want. You are just an arrogant arsewipe who is intolerable of others who don’t share your views.
    You must have a pretty sad life if all you can think about is how ‘there is no god’ and turning all the KB threads in religous hate columns.
    Bugger off until you can contribute more than just adding to DPFs blog numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Albert_Ross (293 comments) says:

    big bruv, I am not at all religious and I do not believe that euthanasia should be legalised.

    This is because if it were, selfish people would use it to get rid of relatives whose continuing existence was inconvenient to them. Such people should be punished, or preferably deterred by the threat of punishment.

    People who are motivated not by selfishness but by genuine love and compassion will not mind paying the price for acting to end suffering.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    I reckon that there are two separate topics within the euthanasia debate:

    1) Allowing friends or family to direct euthanasia (as opposed to withholding treatment) is fraught with fish hooks & will need the wisdom of Solomon to sort out. Given the pedestrian lot we elect as MPs I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that.

    2) It should be possible for an individual to formally direct that if he/she reaches a certain point of suffering that they should receive a quick & painless death. This could take the form of a notarised statement similar to a will or an enduring Power of Attorney & probably made at the same time. If a person is deemed sufficiently sane to direct the care & disposal of their property they are sane enough to direct when they will die.

    The best decisions are not those made by emotional relatives & it’s grossly unfair to expect medical professionals to second guess a patient’s wishes.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Lighten up, and enjoy the comedy stylings of Billy T

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    @nasska

    What you say sounds very sensible.

    Could you tell me who determines if someone is sane enough to make such a direction and no pressure or any sort is being applied?

    There have been many cases of relations “caring for a parent with a couple of weeks to live getting a scumbag lawyer to attest they are sane when they alter their will.

    If someone sees their inheritance been gobbled up quickly I can see a similar situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    I see where you’re coming from Chuck but I don’t think many lawyers would risk their careers by doing jackups. If there’s any doubt they usually rely on the advice of a geriatrician or psychiatrist.

    My own mother is now in a high care resthome suffering from vascular dementia & I remember the hoops that we had to jump through to get my brother named as an enduring power of attorney…..that was when her symptoms were relatively mild.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Odakyu-sen (655 comments) says:

    ‘It’s a very steep slippery slope into totalatarianism [sic] and government control over all life.’

    Unfortunately, the suffering of Scott Adams’ father and those like him (not to mention their families) is the price that must be paid to keep off the slippery slope.

    Is there a better way?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    nasska.
    7.04 pm.

    “………will need the wisdom of Solomon to sort out.”

    But….but……nasska.
    Solomon – isn’t he a character in that so called book written by a primitive stone age desert cult called the bible?
    Isn’t that book just a fairy tale, believed only by those Godbotherers and evil christians? It’s really just sky fairy stuff, isn’t it?

    Well………that’s what I thought you said, anyway. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    Nasska, I am not talking about a lawyer going to redraw a will and speaking to someone that does not know what year it is. I know of a couple of cases where these things have been overturned but the lawyer is never prosecuted.

    There are very few hard and fast rules about what a lawyer can and cannot do.

    A lawyer has to do something really bad and provable before they have any worries about risking their careers.

    Lawyer argue all the time for scumbag rapist and killers. Do you not think they cannot defend themselves against something like that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi at 9:50 pm

    Well…. if I said that a task required the strength of Hercules, would it make the gods of Olympus any more real?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    If I am not able and sane enuf to have an accident while ‘cleaning” a old shotgun (dont use your fave firearm to top yourself as the police will destroy that nice gun!) then I would hope that someone close to me would have the good grace to slip a handful of rat bait into my gruel and at least hold my nose while I choke on my own vomit :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    …”Solomon – isn’t he a character in that so called book written by a primitive stone age desert cult called the bible?”….

    Just a figure of speech Don…..mind you I’ve been known to quote from other works of fiction on occasions. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    SGA.

    Was just kidding – I do understand metaphor .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @Don the Kiwi

    Fair enough – sometimes it’s hard to tell around here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Chuck

    There’s a difference between what you’ve cited & euthanasia. One deals with the allocation of the deceased’s estate but with euthanasia, law & medical experts are dealing with the life of the person involved.

    Fair enough, there are certainly shady lawyers, there are incompetent lawyers, even greedy ones but those who would cause the death of a human being on spurious grounds would be few & far between.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    I love Dilbert, but Mr Adams is absolutely dead wrong on this. People aren’t dogs. You don’t ‘put people down’, especially when the plurality of the people involved are elderly, infirm, vulnerable and often unable to fairly represent their wishes. I’m amazed at the attitudes on an ostensibly conservative website. Yeah, it would be a ‘great’ idea to give more power of life and death to the state apparatus and effectively DHB’s. ‘Old sick people are just a burden anyway’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Whaleoil I am very sorry for your loss and the tragedy you describe. But very respectfully, I think your post represents an issue that might arise for some people (certainly not for you or your mother). How many parents would feel pressure to be euthanised in order to spare their loved ones the pain of seeing them suffer? I think this would be a very significant issue. I know my own grandma, despite being desperately lonely, was loathe to receive visits whilst lucid because she wanted to spare everyone the pain of seeing her post multiple strokes/seizures and surgeries. For me I think it’s incumbent on the living not to pile more pressure and emotional difficulties onto the dying.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    I’m amazed at the attitudes on an ostensibly conservative website.

    Here? It’s DPF’s blog, and I wouldn’t describe him as “ostensibly conservative”. And Kiwiblog attracts a wide range of commenters and readers.

    The only real conservative departed from Kiwiblog last week saying describing Kiwiblog as “Mostly a collection of boring prog trolls with fuck all of consequence to say about anything.”

    Yeah, it would be a ‘great’ idea to give more power of life and death to the state apparatus and effectively DHB’s.

    I haven’t seen anyone promoting anything like that. What has been proposed is to give idea more power of life and death to people regarding their own life and imminent death.

    For me I think it’s incumbent on the living not to pile more pressure and emotional difficulties onto the dying.

    By not having other people or the state decide what is legal or not regarding choices about their own life and death. Free choice for the dying is the best for their emotional wellbeing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    I think Mister Adams post is a good example of why we should not be publicly posting when we are suffering grievous loss. Maybe when he has come to terms with his father’s death he may not feel quite so angry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    It is the utter hypocrisy of xtians that gets me, they believe people should suffer on their way to death.
    Yet when they are dying from bone cancer they are the first to scream for morphine.

    A sad society we have when we put a dog down which is suffering yet because of a few fundys we cannot help our nearest when they need our aid.
    And allowing people to starve to death is inhuman, yet it is legal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    There are reasons why we don’t allow the killing of innocent human life. There are reasons why we don’t routinely kill our elderly. There are fences that protect innocent human life. If you don’t understand why those fences are there you don’t understand the issue.
    Why do you think we don’t kill the elderly?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,519) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    We don’t kill elderly, for the same reason we don’t kill children – because each age has its importance in the circle of life. From the youth we gain a future, from the elderly we gain the past – i.e. the value of experience, – the knowledge and wisdom.

    However, I disagree that the elderly or anyone should be required to live with indignity and pain, if it is their personal choice not to.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,519) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 9:05 am

    My father died of emphysema almost 22 years ago. I have come to terms with his death, but NOTHING will assist in extinguishing the anger that seeing him suffer, when he was begging to be allowed to ‘go’, has caused. In time the positive memories of him take over, but when I allow myself to think, or when something reminds (seeing oxygen cylinders etc) I relive that horror and the anger returns.

    Don’t tell him to ‘come to terms’ with that. No one with a heart can come to terms with seeing someone they love suffering in such a way.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ UpandComer (492) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 1:46 am

    It is not ‘putting a person down’ if it is their choice, and if as is suggested, two medical practitioners agree.

    Euthanasia will never be compulsory, but I believe it is an individuals right to decide and for that option to be available, should that person wish to end their own suffering. The requirement for two medical practitioners to agree, means that the option can never just be a ‘quick exit’ for someone the family don’t want, or for someone that feels obliged to get out their children’s way.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    ‘However, I disagree that the elderly or anyone should be required to live with indignity and pain, if it is their personal choice not to.’

    WINZ are asking 60 y o’s what their plans for the future are.

    The study cap for funding is now 55.

    Once you’ve been on ACC employers are very hesitant to take you on. In fact one mechanic told me no garage would hire him after being on ACC.

    And don’t forget, according to those on this blog the poor shouldn’t have cars. give them no dignity at all.

    superannuiants who’ve contributed to society all their lioves are bludgers according to the elites on this blog.

    No one can do any right let alone have dignity

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ wikiriwhis business (2,303) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    I agree with you. I am perfectly aware of the double standards of society. They wonder why some young people see the elderly as targets for violence, but don’t connect that their taunts of the elderly contribute to the ethos that is only one step away from such violent behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. annie (539 comments) says:

    I see the comfortable myth that morphine provides adequate pain relief is still alive and well among those who would impose their private morality on the rest of us.

    It doesn’t, it’s a lie. Some people, a minority in my experience, get excellent pain relief from opiates. Most people – quite a lot of pain relief, but not perfect. And it doesn’t really touch about 20% of poor buggers, This difference in response is thought to be the result of genetic variation.

    Kowtow and the like – sharpen up your arguments, at least ditch the misinformation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Judith- but it is not just a personal issue is it? What would you like to have happened for your father? That someone kill him? That we have a team of state appointed executioners ready to give old people a lethal injection if they want one? What sort of horror show is that?
    Isn’t your anger really about death and suffering? Perhaps you are angry with death and suffering? Perhaps you are angry with God?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,520) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    1. I don’t get angry with things I don’t believe in.

    2. I don’t get enjoyment or even complacency in hearing my father groan in pain, scream in pain, and gasp for breath he stated clearly he didn’t want.

    3. I think if my father decided he had enough, and didn’t want to live, then that is his decision to make. The difference would have only been 2 months, if wasn’t like he was going to get well.

    4. Your ‘team’ does not exist. You are exaggerating, and horrifying the situation – the proposal is to have any person that is dying and wanting to die, to be interviewed by two independent medical professionals (another suggestion is that it must included their own GP, therefore have someone that knows them), before any decision is made.

    5. I don’t have a problem with death, having lost several loved ones in my life, I accept death as the end of life, and part of the natural deterioration and progression of life.

    6. Isn’t your disagreement really about the desire to make other people believe in your imaginary friend, whose popularity will only continue providing you can draw others in to your illusion?

    P.S. I would have gladly administered the injection to my father and held him whilst he took his last breaths, knowing it was what he wanted and that he would no longer be in pain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ annie (515) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 2:40 pm

    Bullshit.

    My father was on everything they could come up with, and he still was in tremendous pain – not just occasionally, not once every 30 mins, or every 5 mins, but every single time he took a breath – it was like being stabbed with a knife.

    How many breaths do you think you have taken whilst reading this, in an hour, in a day? He did that for 9 months, every single friggin breath – so maybe your drugs work for some – but they didn’t for him and it was his life, for him to decide.

    What you are saying is, you want to be in control of people’s lives, that their opinion doesn’t matter – its what you want that does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Perhaps you are angry with death and suffering?

    Scott, do you enjoy watching people suffer?

    Would you enjoy watching your pet suffer, or would you take it to a vet and have it put down humanely?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Maybe when he has come to terms with his father’s death he may not feel quite so angry.

    What a bizarre comment. Adams is completely entitled to feel angry and is entitled to express his feelings of anger.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    Judith at 5:23 pm

    Sorry, but what in annie’s 2:40 are you taking offense at? You seem to be singing off the same page?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @
    SGA (336) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Sorry, yes good point, I actually read it as the opposite, missing the vital word ‘myth’…. I thought she was arguing that as it was only 20 % that suffered, that was ok.

    APOLOGIES ANNIE ….. I misread your post – I was so peeved off with what Scott had to say – even 22 years later the memories are very real and hurtful.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    So Judith the humane thing to do would be to kill your parent if that’s what they want? If they did not want to die that would be murder? But if they said it is ok then it is not murder? And how would you really feel having personally killed your own father? His death would be on your conscience forever.
    Now most people who support euthanasia will not kill their parent. No, they want the government,that is the taxpayer, to pay for a doctor/executioner to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    On the other hand what we have done in civilised Christian nations is believe that there is something sacred about human life. It is not a disposable thing. That means we protect the innocent and the vulnerable. That means the very young and the elderly. We care for them and look after them.
    This makes for a caring society where civilised living is possible.
    Where we do not dispose of the elderly and we instead offer them the best palliative care that we can. Where we do not have death panels deciding who lives and who dies. Where we leave the timing of our death up to God rather than trying to play God.

    For the kernel of this is Man’s desire to be like God – the original sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,522) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    What a factious prat you are!

    I would have gladly paid whatever it took to end the pain he was in. IT was what he wanted, and he had the same imaginary friend you did.

    According to you its fine to sit and watch them squirming in pain, begging for someone to end it – that’s the christian thing to do is it? Allow suffering, and pain? Somehow I remember reading that Jesus worked in the opposite way, he sought to relieve pain and suffering – oh how far you people are removed from that. You’d rather watch and pray than actually get off your arses do the hardest thing you’d ever be asked to do, but do it out of love for that person.

    You make me sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Scott (1,522) Says:
    November 27th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
    On the other hand what we have done in civilised Christian nations is believe that there is something sacred about human life. It is not a disposable thing.

    What a hypocrite – there have been millions of lives lost due christianity – I guess it’s fine when it suites huh?

    I’m sure you’d have no problem with euthanasia if the funds went in to the churches coffers – you’d soon find a way to make it God’s will.

    Jesus wasn’t born into a civilised society, and it wasn’t civilised when he died, either. We live in a secular society – or did you forget that? Does everyone have to live by your rules – because you are ????? what exactly???? What is so special about you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Judith if you are going to use examples, then don’t use examples that you are unable to discuss rationally.
    You are ascribing things to me that I do not believe at all.

    But what you are arguing for is that in certain circumstances murder is okay and in certain circumstances suicide is okay. Well I am sorry but killing an innocent person is still wrong. Unfortunately we are reverting to pre-Christian barbarian days where we are knocking the old person on the head, humanely of course.

    We do not live in a secular society. Most New Zealanders are not secular. The proclamation of the atheist Prime Minister Helen Clark represents her preference only.

    But here are some questions for you. If your dear old father was a believer then he is in heaven. Although he suffered in this life he is now in perfect contentment and peace in the next. What about the destination of your soul? Where will you go?

    Jesus said – come to me all who are weary and burdened and I will give you life, I will give you rest for your souls.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    Scott at 8:46 am

    But what you are arguing for is that in certain circumstances murder is okay and in certain circumstances suicide is okay.

    No, she isn’t Scott. Murder, by definition, is an unlawful killing. We are discussing whether euthanasia should be lawful, and hence not murder. If, as you claim, you want people to discuss things rationally, then dial back on the emotive language.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Nothing emotive there SGA. But what you have said does bring out the euthanasia agenda quite well.You are pointing out quite correctly that we will exempt a class of persons, the elderly who say they want to die, from the protection of the law. So we can kill them without it being murder.

    After World War II in the Nuremberg trials leading Nazis were tried for murdering the Jews. They replied that quite correctly by the laws of Germany at the time the killing of Jews was lawful. Because under the laws of Germany the Jews were not people and did not have the protection of the law.

    Presumably for the purposes of euthanasia the elderly will not be people. That’s the kind of slippery slope, that’s the kind of inhumane trajectory that we are heading towards. Evil of the worst kind.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    Scott at 10:04 am

    Nothing emotive there SGA.

    “execution teams”, “murder”, “Nazis” – LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,525) Says:
    November 28th, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Nice targeting, but who says Euthanasia is just for the elderly?

    My father wasn’t elderly when he died (a long slow and painful death).

    Honestly, you need to get away from the pulpit and out into the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    The Europeans are debating child euthanasia so it won’t be long before adult Euthanasia will be adopted.

    Child euthanasia debated in Belgium

    Belgian lawmakers will on Wednesday vote on whether to support a proposed new bill to give extremely sick children the right to euthanasia, a move certain to fan the divisive debate on the practice worldwide.

    The new bill would make Belgium the first country to remove the age limit for the procedure – though it would insist parents have a role in their child’s decision to die.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/9449726/Child-euthanasia-debated-in-Belgium

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,525) Says:
    November 28th, 2013 at 8:46 am
    Well I am sorry but killing an innocent person is still wrong

    But killing a person who has sinned, isn’t?
    Does the bible say ‘thee who is without sin cast the first stone’ – we are all sinners according to the bible – so I’ll take that as you agreeing, euthanasia is ok for everyone, except the non-sinners group which exists only of your imaginary friend. (oh yeah, and his kid)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Judith – no. It’s good that you know the Bible. But the injunction against killing is the concern that innocent people will die. The elderly and the young, who were routinely killed in pagan nations. So for example the Comanche Indians would knock their old people on the head when they were no longer able to go on hunting expeditions and raids. In Roman times they would routinely leave an unwanted baby out in the cold to die of exposure.
    So that’s why we don’t kill innocent people. Because we are created in the image of God. That’s what the Bible says which is good that you are quoting it.

    But the exception is for those convicted of murder. Previously we used to execute murderers based on biblical principles of justice.

    The sad thing is that the modern liberal appears to be perfectly content with routinely slaughtering 16,000 unborn infants a year in this country alone. And quite happy at the prospect of hundreds of old people being killed by doctors/executioners paid for by the state. And yet the same person thinks it is terrible for people like William Bell who bashed elderly people to death at the Mount Wellington RSA to be executed for his crimes.

    So I am perfectly content that I am in the real world. It is the modern liberals who are unable to handle reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote