FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
When will "Dr Death" Kavorkian kill himself?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah the wonderful limitations of words! We shall have to work hard to overcome such simple misunderstandings. I shall have to educate myself better on these issues. I have a feeling that you have spent much more time, perhaps due to your age, under circumstances where you've seen and learned a bit about all this.

You call me correctly too. I haven't seen that much death. I live in Canada. so the practical aspects of health are quite different.

Tell me, please, about your position on all this. With so much rambling about K from this thread, I do not have a clear idea of where you are on this. You just talked of a paradigm shift, yet I don't see how that is. I'm curious. Educate me.

Sorry for calling you out so roughly on this. To me, it's purely logical that in any given society, due to factors not entirely of our choice, there may be pressures on the individual. Durkeim is my favorite sociologist when it comes to studying (from afar) the question of suicide.

Simply, even if we where to make a perfect society, young pathocrats would be terribly unhappy at being unable to manipulate and dominate the world. They would hate that society, much as the kind and generous souls now find themselves under pressure.

Durkeim, then saw multiple kinds of suicides. Suicide due to personal failures and suicides due from pressures of society are the most prevalent kinds.

The tribes you talked about would never force anyone to kill themselves. But they had traditions glorifying the voluntary departures. When the village was in a tough spot due to lack of food, who should volunteer to off themselves to save others? A young and healthy woman? Or the one who seen many winters, who, themselves in themselves feel they can no longer provide anything of value to others. Is that self-sacrifice a great gift? And for one afflicted with weakness and disease, whose efforts are other futile? Perhaps this was more prevalent in the northern tribes, due to the long and rough winters.

I'm not sure what Fintan thinks about suicide. I'm sure that like me, he wishes his familly member would not have done it. But how can we deny the pain others feel? The pain of the soul often knows no cure and not every soul has the same tolerance for it.
Huge Tits Webcams

Last edited by paradox on Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what Ormond is saying is that it is unethical to argue for death. It is unethical for Kevorkian to provide the means for one to achieve death. It is unethical for the state, any state, to provide an argument or a means to achieve death. For all opportunities (and policies advocating death as an option) will eventually be abused.

I agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely, Obeylittle.

When a culture grants authority to professionals to cause death, even with a contract, there's a problem that such an action is as final as it gets. Thus such a law must have assurance that:

Diagnosis. prognosis, and treatment are absolutely without error.

That the patient is of sound mind, and the decision is in no way influenced by either medication, coercion by any party who stands to profit from the death accelerated death of that patient.

This includes:
- Hospitals for whom patients without health insurance (in the wonderful United States) will experience an unrecoverable deficit for each day that patient continues to live.

-Insurance companies who may have to pay out a considerable amount for the patient's continued care.

I can go further into a whole host of other sticky points on this topic, but these two seem sufficient to me to cast at least a shadow of a doubt on the euthanasia issue in terms of lawmaking.

We do not presume that all hospitals would lean on doctors to 'gently persuade' or encourage a teminally ill patient to consider the 'option' just to spare the spare the loss on their balance sheet bottom line. But the potential that sooner or late some would has a high probablity.

In the case of insurance corporations, HMO's coercing hospitals and doctors to have motive for encouraging or persuading invalid patients to take this option, the same is true. High probability that this is going to happen sooner or later.

Because the money involved is substantial enough to constitute motive for abuse of this law. The Kavorkian focus presented by the MSM is warm and fuzzy and intimate between patient and doctor. The real situation is insurance companies, state hospitals, medicare and social security stand to pocket billions in forfeited payouts.

As for Gary and Rumple, I'm sorry to hear that each of you have been in the situation of a terminally ill parent that's expressed wanting to move on.
Anyone who's been in that position will know what a deep moral dilemma this question is. A caring person knows how deeply it goes and that it sounds ridiculous for advocates of Kavorkian with no such experience to glibly reduce it to the simple logic of 'they asked for it, so why not?'

I've been careful not to say that there are circumstances in which this would be the right course to follow. But we understand that it will not be right for every case. There are too many sloppy variables to render euthenasia generic.

In serious law decisions, considerations come into play such as whether to risk losing a percentage of patients who's decision would be arrived at due to undiscovered malpractice, or malfeasance or both., would obviously render their decision based upon a fallacy. Again, there is a high probability that this is going to happen to somebody sooner or later. What's the legal remedy to the deceased, who misdiagnosed as terminal, or suffering due to malpractice? A large cash settlement to their next of kin?

This is my point about this one, and why I said the implications are legion. There's a ton more than these, but these alone are plenty as they raise doubt.

One must also consider my position in terms of US law, US medical practice, and in particular that there is no assurance of health care in the United States except depending upon an insurance carrier (and one better have a pretty damn good relationship with theirs -- they'd kill their mom for a nickle and give change), or an unlimited personal fortune.

But yes, if this law becomes universal 'Federal' law, (and they do want that), where's it going to go in the future if they get the public to go along with this? It's a scalable legal precedent. This year, decision by the patient. Ten years hence, maybe the State will adopt that mystery Indian tribe's customs of universal elderly 'expiration date' , and voluntary mercy killing of those 'dragging down the taxpayer' by living on disability, or ten years after being a 'useless eater'.

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In your post above Ormond you mentioned several "institutions" interacting in our current health care systems. The doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies etc. The system of death, of "expiration dates" argued here is already setup and functioning in the USA. Has been for a long time now. I have personal experience.

In our current system the insurance company assigns a case specialist, commonly a company employed "nurse" working under contract or for "commission", to follow the patient through the system dictating not only the price the insurance company will pay, but also dictating which "treatments" and "services" the insurance company will pay for.

Hospitals (all are corporations) must obey them or forfeit money. Doctors must obey or forfeit money with their hospital beating them over the head and running them out if they don't comply with providing what will be paid for. There is very little negotiating room for either party, particularly the patient whom doesn't have any say at all in his/her treatment under this system.

When it is "time to go", or the patient needs an extended period for "recovery", the patient is sent over to a corporate "care facility" that is "recommended" or dictated by the insurance company (many times the care facility is owned or co-owned by the insurance company). The care facility is then paid on scales according to length of the stay, so that diminishing returns are realized for the care facility if the patient doesn't die or recover right away. Shit gets done in very timely fashion in this strictly regulated environment.

Thats the way it is and has been for well over two decades here in the USA. Death is dictated according to diminishing profits. Death is a "treatment" and a service. Its 100% economical factors that drive it.

Those poor unfortunates without insurance are treated more readily.

Ethics in this system cannot exist and absolutely do not. All of us are victims whether we have loved ones in the system or not. Even hospitals and the doctors are victims. Its regulated to be exactly that way through the government regulating of insurance companies. Think about it.

Wait until the end of this decade if you think the above is appalling. Under the new HMO corporate health care system our next "president" is bringing in, this will be policy in your face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote a few paragraphs but I had to abandon them: They were too emotionally charged.

I'll write again later. I need to think.

Let's not let this thread drop. It's too important: It's life or death.


Or death.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But whether I'm right or not, I think people will still kill themselves. In fact, I know they will. Why not offer them a more human alternative then mangling their bodies under cars and buses, jumping off bridges to become bloated corpses, or quietly hanging themselves to be found to the shock of any passerby?

I said this before, when people are ready to kill themselves they find a way. Until then, they suffer. If someone wants to die quickly and surely, they use a gun to their head. They know it will be a gory scene for the unfortunate person who finds their body, but that's secondary to their desire to exit. Swallowing massive doses of pills..poison or whatever may be considered 'humane' by that person even though whoever finds them will see a pretty ugly picture.

Jumping off bridges, hanging, crashing their car, throwing themselves in front of trains..even with the margin of error for survival, they usually succeed. They may be trying to make a statement of anger with their suicide..they may not. Using means that are not 'sure' is making a desperate dramatic cry for help even at a subconscious level. And the hope that someone will find you is not secondary. A girl in my high school killed herself with a gunshot to her stomach. It turned out she was pregnant. I remember my physiology teacher told the class that in his opinion, she was crying for help and if she had really wanted to die she would have aimed at her head. That was the first time i had ever thought about that at age 16 and it rang true.

Since then i have had lost 2 cousins to suicide, one by hanging (my cousin Anya in Beirut during the civil war in the late '70s) and another cousin Danny by overdose a few years ago. A well respected luthier in our community used a rifle aimed to his head from under his chin last year because he had developed a horrible skin disease from the years of chemical exposure in his work. I went to his funeral and the man who found him, a friend of mine and of the luthier told me the whole gruesome story..

When i was in a completely beaten down state married to a what i would now call sociopath, and thought i had no options and no support network.. and isolated from my family and had no friends, i twice attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills. I really wanted someone to save me..to help me. I could have knocked myself off for real if that's what i truly wanted..but i couldn't admit the truth of that to myself then. And at that time i wasn't aware of any support services available the way they are now. Part of that was the isolation and the psychological trauma i was in.

We can choose whether to suffer on our own or in a hospital, until we can suffer no more and either drug ourselves to the max and die from the pain naturally or end it ourselves sooner.

IMO we don't need to legislate suicide. We don't need to give that power to someone else whether individually or to the state. We already have the power if we choose it.

The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The humane part comes not from the method of suicide, but the fact that family and friends can gather and give farewell. I wish that could have been an option for my father.

You are right abcar. If the people involved feels the need to die, they will. I am concerned about those in the hospital who do not have that option.

Last edited by paradox on Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 22
Location: tangled in moss

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:39 am    Post subject: insights pls Reply with quote

DrK did propose, IMO, a good idea which was ignored. He had inmates that were scheduled for the death penalty that wanted to donate their organs, etc., but could not because of the toxicity of the injections and the damage caused by the electrocution. I am not a supporter of "legal murder", but, as long as it exists, why not allow these people the oppertunity to do one good deed. I know this presents the huge oppertunity of abuse, coersion, etc., but at it's face, is it a good idea? I watched DrK being interviewed many years ago and this point has always stuck in my head. I understand that inmates and terminally ill patients are easy prey to the 'bottom line' morality Mad that exists, but well intentioned people should be able to come up with parameters that would exclude that.
My father had altzheimers and lingered for several years in a vetrans hospital with minimal "care" and I KNOW he would have opted for an early out if possible. My son has promised* to free me when my time comes if I am unable to think or do for myself. This is a sticky delima.
* as his reason dictates at the time
p.s. pls excuse poor spelling

2 be vs 2 seem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.