Right to die

[Godscreated]

[Reforged]

"My uncle is proof we do not always have control over our own lives, if we do not want someone extending our lives we need to have a living will made out for our doctors, stating only to have pain killers and water, when one is not feed there is no pain suffered, so we do have some control over our death, but no one should have there lives shortened by what people call mercy killing."

Sorry, no. I'm not letting this one slide. How is purposefully starving yourself anything other than suicide? What, thats ok but any other form of suicide or mercykilling is just a step too far?
Do you have any idea how much of a hypocrite you actually are? According to you self-imposed death is immoral, wrong and people who do it will be punished by God or whatever but the particular brand you guys carried out?
Nah, that was ok because it was natural. Newsflash; poking a bear with a stick or lying on the edge of a cliff that is likely to break off would both be "natural" ways to die. There are many and you could say "Oh look God did it" but you'd be talking bullshit wouldn't you? If you deny someone sustenance for an overly extend period of time then they will die. Thats what happens, God or no God. You all knew this and you went through with it fully expecting it to happen as a result, not through the power of "prayers" but because thats what happens. You starve someone, they die.
Don't try to give yourself a free pass you don't extend to others.

You're quite the piece of work, when I said we did not give him food, his time was short, no more than a day, the food could have extended his life and all would have suffered longer in that hospital room. I was talking about extending life, that's why I gave the example of my uncle, why is it you want to take what I write and turn it upside down to make it look as I said things I did not, please read more carefully. We were not trying to shorten dad's life we wanted to prevent extending it unnecessarily.

"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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Necessity, in all of it's forms, the most utilized weasel word on these boards..lol. All of a sudden you decide what is "necessary", eh GC?

In GC's defense Raph, I believe a doctor with a needle springs to his mind when he contemplates euthanasia (and how the morphine escapes that comparison is beyond me, but meh).

[Reforged]

Necessity, in all of it's forms, the most utilized weasel word on these boards..lol. All of a sudden you decide what is "necessary", eh GC?

In GC's defense Raph, I believe a doctor with a needle springs to his mind when he contemplates euthanasia (and how the morphine escapes that comparison is beyond me, but meh).

That shouldn't be my problem. He should of researched euthanasia properly before commenting on this thread like everyone else.
It gives him no right to write a paragraph which basically amounts to "Oh I've been through what you went through and I did end the suffering prematurely but it was through starvation and we prayed alot while we did it so it doesn't count... so I'm still better than you."
The one morally correct action I have ever seen him write about and he cheapens it with that. A statement that tells of someone who would sooner alienate himself from everyone else who had experienced what he had than admit he knew it was against what his beliefs usually teach but he did it anyway because he cared more about his families happiness. He'd still rather the merciful act of sparing a loved one further suffering through mercy-killing be illegal.
Astonishingly hypocritical and self-centred.

[Godscreated]

[hide]You're quite the piece of work, when I said we did not give him food, his time was short, no more than a day, the food could have extended his life and all would have suffered longer in that hospital room. I was talking about extending life, that's why I gave the example of my uncle, why is it you want to take what I write and turn it upside down to make it look as I said things I did not, please read more carefully. We were not trying to shorten dad's life we wanted to prevent extending it unnecessarily.[hide]

"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.

[KnockEmOuttt]

"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.

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.

[NoraBrimstone]

Long story short, GC does support voluntary euthanasia, but doesn't want to admit it for reasons unknown?

[The Grand Nudger]

Long story short, GC does support voluntary euthanasia, but doesn't [realize] it for reasons unknown?

Much more likely. GC, you did describe euthanasia, of the sort that is typically legally grey. While the practice isn't institutionalized as a right it is already employed as a practiciality. For what it's worth it sounds like you did the right thing for the right reasons, and it doesn't cheapen it in any way to call it what it is, so perhaps your position on this matter here on the forums is a kneejerk reaction to a term that you felt carried negative connotations, and in no way indicative of the position you would take with full consideration of the individuals wishes irl?

[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.

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.

---

Long story short, GC does support voluntary euthanasia, but doesn't want to admit it for reasons unknown?

Give use the definition of euthanasia please, I do no believe that's beyond your capability.

[ib.me.ub]

Neither is your ability to use a keyboard and google it!