Right to die

[Reforged]

"We were not trying to shorten dad's life we wanted to prevent extending it unnecessarily."
Sorry, whats the difference? Isn't that exactly the right everyone who wants euthanasia to be legal fights for? To not have the lives of loved ones extended unnecessarily if it is painful and causing them distress?
His life was reduced, regardless of by how little, by the decision not to feed him and to provide morphine so starvation did not cause discomfort. Thats euthanasia and in the circumstances you described its perfectly moral.
Don't cheapen that by trying to employ a double standard so you can separate yourself from others who have done the same.

There's a big difference, you're to dense to see it or you just like making a fool of yourself. I believe it to be both, we did not starve him, that would take several days you idiot, he had about 24hrs. without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering, and as I stated it was his wish, He told us to do nothing that would extend his and our suffering, quite a noble love for us.

"without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering"

Translation; he died sooner than he naturally would of because he wasn't fed.
Thats cutting someones life short to prevent further suffering.
Thats euthanasia.
If you can't deal with that and want to continue with your dellusion then don't present it as evidence euthanasia shouldn't be legal because thats grossly hypocritical and I will call you out on it.

[Godscreated]

There's a big difference, you're to dense to see it or you just like making a fool of yourself. I believe it to be both, we did not starve him, that would take several days you idiot, he had about 24hrs. without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering, and as I stated it was his wish, He told us to do nothing that would extend his and our suffering, quite a noble love for us.

"without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering"

Translation; he died sooner than he naturally would of because he wasn't fed.
Thats cutting someones life short to prevent further suffering.
Thats euthanasia.
If you can't deal with that and want to continue with your dellusion then don't present it as evidence euthanasia shouldn't be legal because thats grossly hypocritical and I will call you out on it.

You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.

[Reforged]

"without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering"

Translation; he died sooner than he naturally would of because he wasn't fed.
Thats cutting someones life short to prevent further suffering.
Thats euthanasia.
If you can't deal with that and want to continue with your dellusion then don't present it as evidence euthanasia shouldn't be legal because thats grossly hypocritical and I will call you out on it.

You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.

I'm not the one who refuses to acknowledge the one act of mercy he has ever admitted to doing. You cut his suffering short because it was the right thing to do. Thats the definition of euthanasia and it is not something that should be illegal or have any kind of shame or guilt cast on it.
Its the last merciful act of a loving individual to his dying relative.
I do not apologize for expressing that, if that makes me arrogant or hateful then who am I to argue.
I am however sorry for your loss.

[NoraBrimstone]

You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.

I'm not the one who refuses to acknowledge the one act of mercy he has ever admitted to doing. You cut his suffering short because it was the right thing to do. Thats the definition of euthanasia and it is not something that should be illegal or have any kind of shame or guilt cast on it.
Its the last merciful act of a loving individual to his dying relative.
I do not apologize for expressing that, if that makes me arrogant or hateful then who am I to argue.
I am however sorry for your loss.

I very much agree with this.

GC, you and your relatives did a wonderful thing in helping your uncle's suffering end that little bit sooner. That's what euthanasia is all about.

[The Grand Nudger]

You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.

bolding mine.

You and your wishful thinking GC...lol.

[Minimalist]

we do not have the right to take the life of others except in the case of protecting ourselves from a killer.

Where did fucking jesus say that, G-C? I think you are making up your own religion again.

[Annik]

For G-C, who apparently cannot use the internet:

eu·tha·na·sia
   [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun
1.
Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.
2.
painless death.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Withholding food from someone is starving them, and how was it that you knew withholding the food is what hastened the death anyway? I don't know where you get off trying to insult someone's intelligence because they've pointed out the flaws of your argument.

By deciding to withhold food from someone you are taking part in deciding what will happen to their body and effectively their life, and that is exactly the thing you judge others for doing under the premise that life and the human body are God's property. Of course, from your statements it's clear that this applies to everyone but you. It's only a sin if someone else does it.

Are you unable to understand what is written, it sure seems that way. I've gone 24 hrs. without eating and in no way was I starving myself. You must be as dense as RD if you believe that no food for 24 hrs. is starving yourself. The doctors told us that to give him food would extend the time he would suffer, keeping the doctors from using a feeding tube was not to hasten his death, it was to not extend his suffering. Dad died a natural death, he did not starve and was given his wish not to use any measures that would extend his life, nothing was given to him to end his life, euthanasia means to take a life by means of drugs. To allow someone to die naturally is not euthanasia, simple really.

By choosing to "not extend his life" you are choosing to hasten his death.

You were withholding food with the intent to cause or hasten death. You can call it what you want, but it's starvation. I would contest that you really do not understand what euthanasia is. What you did for your father is called indirect or passive euthanasia. It's a hands-off alternative to active euthanasia, but it can often lead to a prolonged death. Your father was lucky he only lasted 24 hours, but in some cases (Terri Schiavo, anyone?) it can go on for over a week.

---

"without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering"

Translation; he died sooner than he naturally would of because he wasn't fed.
Thats cutting someones life short to prevent further suffering.
Thats euthanasia.
If you can't deal with that and want to continue with your dellusion then don't present it as evidence euthanasia shouldn't be legal because thats grossly hypocritical and I will call you out on it.

You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.

That's not an argument, sir. Nor is it a valid contribution to this discussion. Raph isn't being hateful or arrogant, he's simply pointing out holes in your arguments and noting that you're just as guilty of the things you say are against the will of God. You just refuse to see it because you don't want to appear hypocritical, since that would be self-defeating on your part.

[Angrboda]

I don't like hopping into a thread I haven't read, but I wanted to add this a few days ago. I hope I'm not repeating someone.

One of the problems with the "right to die" question is that many terminal patients suffer needlessly, not for lack of euthanasia, but for lack of adequate, professional and substantive pain management. A lot of end times patients suffer much more than they should because they are receiving substandard care in managing their pain, often the norm rather than the exception. (There are built in incentives in the system to encourage under treating pain.)

If doctors and the system could be changed so that proper pain management was the norm and not the exception, many of the "right to die" cases could become, if not happy, at least peaceful endings.

[Reforged]

I don't like hopping into a thread I haven't read, but I wanted to add this a few days ago. I hope I'm not repeating someone.

One of the problems with the "right to die" question is that many terminal patients suffer needlessly, not for lack of euthanasia, but for lack of adequate, professional and substantive pain management. A lot of end times patients suffer much more than they should because they are receiving substandard care in managing their pain, often the norm rather than the exception. (There are built in incentives in the system to encourage under treating pain.)

If doctors and the system could be changed so that proper pain management was the norm and not the exception, many of the "right to die" cases could become, if not happy, at least peaceful endings.

Not that simple, sometimes no amount of painkillers help.
Most people simply not receiving proper treatment would ask their relatives to complain or transfer to a different hospital rather than ask to be euthanased on the spot.
True that system does require improvement however.