Euthanasia case in NZ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2015, 12:11 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(29-05-2015 03:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 03:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A lady in NZ has brain cancer and is looking to change the law so that she can choose euthanasia.

This article pleads for the "sanctity of life" and state that the author finds euthanasia offensive.
I don't think either of these positions holds any water although I understand some people think these arguments to be profound.
I don't know how this really justifies the government interfering in people's lives.

Anyway, just posting this as Euthanasia is a topic I'm interested in and am hoping it becomes legal.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl...d=11456922

What an idiot that NA columnist is ; ""The principle recognises that human life is a basic, intrinsic good." The law was designed also to protect the vulnerable."

Really ? And life is still still "good" when it's reduced to excruciating pain ?
Fuckin' amateur. Knows NOTHING about what he's spewing out his ass.
I sentence him to 6 months work in a hospice for his complete stupidity.
Individual's PAIN is not about his fucking "principles".

It appears someone hasn't read, or truly appreciated, their Thomas.

You are expected to fight, and if need be rage, against the reduction of photoelectric activity upon your retinæ. Under no circumstances are you to proceed with equanimity into that enjoyable evening.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
05-06-2015, 12:15 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 12:06 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  What if she decides to use a gun?

If she does it in a manner that is safe to others?
Mission accomplished.
Also to address the diminished capacity issue. Why wait until the disease has progressed to that point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 12:31 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 12:15 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 12:06 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  What if she decides to use a gun?

If she does it in a manner that is safe to others?
Mission accomplished.
Also to address the diminished capacity issue. Why wait until the disease has progressed to that point?

Oh, I was just teasing Stevil, nothing serious intended ... at least until he asks for a mop and bucket.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
05-06-2015, 12:51 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(04-06-2015 11:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 10:36 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  edit: Oh nevermind, read the rest of the article. It's already been brought up in Parliament. 75% of the country are pro-euthanasia apparently.
Just in case anyone is interested, the lady died this morning (of natural causes - cancer).

John Key doesn't mind going against public opinion e.g. in an official poll commissioned by the government 87% of NZers didn't want an anti-smacking law however John decided to put the law in.

I don't hold much hope in politicians changing law for euthanasia, they'd be too scared to lose voters. Those that oppose Euthanasia are likely to be very opposed. For some reason they want terminal patients to suffer.
The thing about supporters for Euthanasia, it really only becomes a big thing when you have a loved one who is currently or recently suffering. Otherwise it is a topic that is out of mind.

Are people still going on about that anti-smacking law? It was to close a loophole that allowed abusive parents to get away with assaulting their children.
It does not punish parents that appropriately smack their kids on their asses.

The public got that whole thing so wrong and blew it out of proportion. Key did the right thing IMO, it was a sensible law that protects a section of our public most vulnerable and who don't get a vote themselves.

You complain people want terminal patients to suffer yet you think it's a good idea that children continue to be allowed to be abused?

Quote:I think it's been mentioned that usually the only time this law is challenged is when someone who is already dying decides to do so. Once the main proponent dies, the case tends to lose its momentum.
When lawyers think nothing of euthanasia until they find themselves (or a client) dying, it isn't enough.
The courts need to be constantly forced to address the issue.

Future cases will just point to this case. The change needs to come from parliament and has the highest likelihood of success from the parliament.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 02:25 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 12:15 AM)pablo Wrote:  Also to address the diminished capacity issue. Why wait until the disease has progressed to that point?
Perhaps to get the maximum life. If the law forces her to kill herself earlier then the law isn't supporting her attempt to have as long a life as she wants.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 05:41 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2015 08:44 AM by onlinebiker.)
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
I knew a lady who offed herself with a plastic bag.


Apparently it's not that tough....

All that's required is the desire and will to do it.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
05-06-2015, 06:50 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(04-06-2015 11:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  John Key doesn't mind going against public opinion e.g. in an official poll commissioned by the government 87% of NZers didn't want an anti-smacking law however John decided to put the law in.

Anti-smacking? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 07:09 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 06:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 11:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  John Key doesn't mind going against public opinion e.g. in an official poll commissioned by the government 87% of NZers didn't want an anti-smacking law however John decided to put the law in.

Anti-smacking? Consider

It was a law that would close a loophole some bad parents used to get away with abusing their children. It basically said you can't hit your kids or something like that and the media spun it that ANY parent would go to jail for smacking their kids which was absolutely not the case. It was basically blown way out of proportion, people petitioned and forced a referendum (the first time I voted was in that referendum which goes to show how long ago, almost 6 years...). The referendum came back 80-90ish percent against the law because everyone panicked and got wrong information. The government passed the law anyway because they're sensible.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
05-06-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 07:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The referendum came back 80-90ish percent against the law because everyone panicked and got wrong information. The government passed the law anyway because they're sensible.

Speaking as someone who lived in California for far too long, referenda are terrible for governance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
05-06-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 02:25 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 12:15 AM)pablo Wrote:  Also to address the diminished capacity issue. Why wait until the disease has progressed to that point?
Perhaps to get the maximum life. If the law forces her to kill herself earlier then the law isn't supporting her attempt to have as long a life as she wants.

That was my point. To skirt the current laws she either offs herself sooner or dies naturally. This has nothing to do with what happens after the law is changed. If she thinks she can get it legalized before she is too far gone she is mistaken.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: