Euthanasia case in NZ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 07:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 06:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Anti-smacking? Consider

It was a law that would close a loophole some bad parents used ...
It is a law that tells parents how to parent. Specifically that by law we cannot smack our naughty children.

I understand that smacking isn't the best approach, but really it's not the governments' place and I don't see the need to lock up or prosecute parents for giving their unruly kids a gentle but scary smack.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 05:41 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  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.
Some people are in such an incapacitated state that a plastic bag would be a challenge to self administer. In fact, remembering their own name, or even remembering who their children are can be an extreme challenge.

Beside the fact that suffocation is a painful death and that an natural response to suffocation would be to uncontrollably pull the bag off.

Are you saying that you can't see the benefit in having medically assisted legal euthanasia?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 01:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 05:41 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  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.
Some people are in such an incapacitated state that a plastic bag would be a challenge to self administer. In fact, remembering their own name, or even remembering who their children are can be an extreme challenge.

Beside the fact that suffocation is a painful death and that an natural response to suffocation would be to uncontrollably pull the bag off.

Are you saying that you can't see the benefit in having medically assisted legal euthanasia?

Right now, as the current laws stand, if you have a terminal, degenerative illness and want to die before it gets unbearably painful.
You can:
Off yourself before it gets too bad and skirt the laws.
Painfully ride out the disease until it kills you.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I want the laws changed. (For the record, I am in favor of assisted suicide.)
These are the options you have right now.
If you choose to wait untill you cannot effectively kill yourself, you waited too long.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
05-06-2015, 02:19 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 01:49 PM)pablo Wrote:  Right now, as the current laws stand, if you have a terminal, degenerative illness and want to die before it gets unbearably painful.
You can:
Off yourself before it gets too bad and skirt the laws.
Painfully ride out the disease until it kills you.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I want the laws changed. (For the record, I am in favor of assisted suicide.)
These are the options you have right now.
If you choose to wait untill you cannot effectively kill yourself, you waited too long.
And that is the argument that she presented in court.

That the law as it stands is forcing her to kill herself sooner rather than later. So the law is shortening her life rather than prolonging it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-06-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 12:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 07:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It was a law that would close a loophole some bad parents used ...
It is a law that tells parents how to parent. Specifically that by law we cannot smack our naughty children.

I understand that smacking isn't the best approach, but really it's not the governments' place and I don't see the need to lock up or prosecute parents for giving their unruly kids a gentle but scary smack.

Wrong.
It doesn't prevent reasonable smacking. This is where everyone went wrong.
I swear we've had this conversation before, it's not a hard concept to understand.

Quote:You can:
Off yourself before it gets too bad and skirt the laws.

Insurance often doesn't pay out in the event of suicide.
What if you have funeral cover but you know your family is too poor to pay for a funeral and so you need that insurance pay out?

If euthanasia was legal insurance would have to pay out in the event of it.

[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, 02:28 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 02:21 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 12:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is a law that tells parents how to parent. Specifically that by law we cannot smack our naughty children.

I understand that smacking isn't the best approach, but really it's not the governments' place and I don't see the need to lock up or prosecute parents for giving their unruly kids a gentle but scary smack.

Wrong.
It doesn't prevent reasonable smacking. This is where everyone went wrong.
I swear we've had this conversation before, it's not a hard concept to understand.
It is illegal to smack kids in NZ.
If you do so then you are breaking the law. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Are you suggesting that our politicians create a law and then inform the public that it is OK to break this new law? What credibility does that give to our law makers and our legal system?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
I am not arguing what about what should be done. I am arguing what can be done right now as the law stands.
When I asked why she doesn't just kill herself, the reply was that she wanted more time, but that if she waited she may not be physically able to later.
I agree that the law should change, I agree that once changed it should be covered by insurance.
My original point was that until the law is changed, she has two choices.
The chances of her getting it changed before she dies are slim at best. I wrote a paper about this subject in high school 31 years ago and it's still going on.
The pressure needs to be continued to get the powers that be to change the law.
I have never stated that I am against euthanasia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 03:54 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Well, it's legal here in Oregon, and we have a law being considered again in California after a lady from California moved to Oregon to be able to die with dignity. She purposefully made a lot of noise about it.

This is one of the issues that I think will be resolved within a generation or so. The number of suicides by the ill and elderly are way underestimated - because of the stigma and the loss of insurance relatives hide this routinely. Bet you what that it happened with someone you know.

Allowing a person to choose their own time and method of exit is just the humane, compassionate thing to do.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
06-06-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(05-06-2015 02:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 02:21 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Wrong.
It doesn't prevent reasonable smacking. This is where everyone went wrong.
I swear we've had this conversation before, it's not a hard concept to understand.
It is illegal to smack kids in NZ.
If you do so then you are breaking the law. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Are you suggesting that our politicians create a law and then inform the public that it is OK to break this new law? What credibility does that give to our law makers and our legal system?

You obviously haven't even read the law, just like 80-90% of people that voted in that referendum.

educate yourself

(4)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”



Going 1km/ph over the speed limit is technically against the law and yet nobody gets picked up for it (short of Christmas and other holidays when Police to pushing hard). Normally they don't even bother until you're going 10+km/ph.

Again, the law is not out to persecute all parents. It is out to close a loophole.
And even if it did say what you think it says (even though it doesn't) I don't see how that would be a bad thing.

You get off on hitting your kids or something?

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Once the police are involved in anything, it's all at their discretion.
Good or bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: