Physician Assisted Suicide/Fuck You Ashcroft!

[BO-CEPHUS]

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_0417_news_assisted_suicide.832549d6.html

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones upheld Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law on Wednesday, issuing his written ruling without speaking a word. The decision deals a blow to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who tried to invalidate the nation's only physician-assisted suicide law.

So where do you stand?

People should have the option to end their lives if they so choose. It's their choice and theirs alone. However, if they need help to do it, who better than a doctor to provide a painless end to their suffering? Who is Ashcroft to impose his views on others? Who is he to try and make it harder for people to end their suffering? No one has the right to pass judgement on another's suffering and pain.

 

[manny78]

All I hear from Americans is that Ashcroft sucks big time, now why the hell does GW Bush keep this dick in his team ?

 

[Prometheus]

All I hear from Americans is that Ashcroft sucks big time, now why the hell does GW Bush keep this dick in his team ?

I was behind Ashcroft until he pulled that crap about covering up the nude female statue in the White House.

 

[The_Mexican]

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_0417_news_assisted_suicide.832549d6.html



So where do you stand?

People should have the option to end their lives if they so choose. It's their choice and theirs alone. However, if they need help to do it, who better than a doctor to provide a painless end to their suffering? Who is Ashcroft to impose his views on others? Who is he to try and make it harder for people to end their suffering? No one has the right to pass judgement on another's suffering and pain.

What a fucker...

 

[Burning_Inside]

i fuck him in the ass

 

[theoak01]

i believe that the person should decide only after a few doctors have determined that person is ill ,will die and is suffering,if all that is not put in place we will have some wack jobs having doctors off them

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

i believe that the person should decide only after a few doctors have determined that person is ill ,will die and is suffering,if all that is not put in place we will have some wack jobs having doctors off them

What right do you have to tell a person that they cannot end their life on this earth. If they do not want to be here, the should be able to end it whenever and how they wish.

 

[Advaik]

I recently won a state debate (came out 3rd in state for those who care ) on this subject.

I was for euthanasia. A doctor can only do this if the patient is terminally ill, meaning he will die within a few months. Also the patient has to be mentally aware; some psycho on his deathbed can NOT ask to be killed. There is a 30+ day waiting period by the time the patient signs the documents stated he wishes to die to the time it actually happens. In that time his reasons for wishing this will be reviewed by a board, who will decide if it is valid to give it the go ahead for lethal injection. It is a very complicated process, most people will die before they request is ever met. Even then only around 30% of the applications are given the go ahead.

Picture this. An 80 year old woman is on her deathbed. She wishes to die, but instead must live through agony of her final days. She gets diabetes and has to have both legs amputated. Her organs are slowly giving out, and the doctors do everything they can to keep her alive for just a few more agonizing days. Why?, because there is money in this. The doctor’s make a fortune putting these bills on the family of the old woman. This is wrong. The old woman wishes to die, but can not consent it and therefore the doctors milk her family for all it’s worth.

There are non profit organizations which are legal and kind of leans toward euthanasia. If this woman had been in their care, they would have diagnosed her and realized that she did not have long to live. Amputating her legs would only bring much pain on her withering body, and would cost a lot to the family. They understand that she no longer wishes to live, so instead of doing all they can to keep her alive, they do nothing. They give her plenty of painkillers and let her die in dignity. This makes it so the family is not burdened with bills, and it lets the victim die in dignity, instead of the severe pain living.

 

[2 ton hoss]

I recently won a state debate (came out 3rd in state for those who care ) on this subject.

I was for euthanasia. A doctor can only do this if the patient is terminally ill, meaning he will die within a few months. Also the patient has to be mentally aware; some psycho on his deathbed can NOT ask to be killed. There is a 30+ day waiting period by the time the patient signs the documents stated he wishes to die to the time it actually happens. In that time his reasons for wishing this will be reviewed by a board, who will decide if it is valid to give it the go ahead for lethal injection. It is a very complicated process, most people will die before they request is ever met. Even then only around 30% of the applications are given the go ahead.

Picture this. An 80 year old woman is on her deathbed. She wishes to die, but instead must live through agony of her final days. She gets diabetes and has to have both legs amputated. Her organs are slowly giving out, and the doctors do everything they can to keep her alive for just a few more agonizing days. Why?, because there is money in this. The doctor’s make a fortune putting these bills on the family of the old woman. This is wrong. The old woman wishes to die, but can not consent it and therefore the doctors milk her family for all it’s worth.

There are non profit organizations which are legal and kind of leans toward euthanasia. If this woman had been in their care, they would have diagnosed her and realized that she did not have long to live. Amputating her legs would only bring much pain on her withering body, and would cost a lot to the family. They understand that she no longer wishes to live, so instead of doing all they can to keep her alive, they do nothing. They give her plenty of painkillers and let her die in dignity. This makes it so the family is not burdened with bills, and it lets the victim die in dignity, instead of the severe pain living.

I AGREE TOTALLY. I DO NOT THINK OTHERWISE PHYSICALLY HEALTHY PEOPLE OR MENTALLY ILL SHOULD HAVE ASSISTED SUICIDE AS AN OPTION. LET THEM DO IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY. BUT I THINK THE TERMINALLY ILL BUT COGENT SHOULD HAVE IT AS AN OPTION.

NOW I CAN SEE HOW ABORTION MIGHT BE A STRONGLY DEBATED ISSUE, BUT THIS? HOW CAN YOU BE AGAINST SOMETHING LIKE THIS. WHEN I GET OLD AND GREY, I'M CHOOSING ASSISTED SUICIDE RATHER THAN RUN UP 200 GRAND WORTH OF MEDICAL BILLS FOR THE FAMILY.

 

[musclebrains]

i believe that the person should decide only after a few doctors have determined that person is ill ,will die and is suffering,if all that is not put in place we will have some wack jobs having doctors off them

Actually, this is exactly what the Oregon law requires.

I don't know why this latest piece of insanity by Ashcroft should suprise anyone. This is the same man who tried,unsucessfully, to eliminate basic judicial freedoms in trying accused terrorists. (Even the Defense Dept. people were horrified and prevailed.)

Nevertheless, he continues to make amazing inroads in reversing basic liberties. Immigrants have been tried in totally secret proceedings. Fortunately, a U.S. district judge declared that uncontitutional, as did another his insane effort to overcome Oregon's right to define legitimate medical practice.

Ashcroft is also prosecuting a lawyer who defended a terrorist. He's accusing her of acting as a go-between for the imprisoned Omar Abdel Rahman and his group in Egypt. Of course, this requires literally abandoning the principle of client-attorney confidentiality. The government, under Ashcroft's urging, now believes it can monitor client-attorney communications without establishing probable cause and without a judge's permission. In the case of this lawyer, she has not actually been accused of abetting the enemy, because there's no evidence. She's guilty in Ashcroft's eyes just for her association. The whole point is to undo the classic rules governing attorney-client privilege.

Ashcroft has arrested literally thousands of Arab and Muslim immigrants and is trying to extend his "Interviews" to 3,000 more immigrants. With all of this, he has made exactly ONE case -- and that was of someone arrested before 9/11. All this talk, all this reversal of basic American liberties and not a SINGLE case has been made.