Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 It's not about what you can do with your body, it's about what another person can do with your body.

Nope: It is about who I give permission to do what I direct them to do with MY BODY. If my illness goes terminal, not YOU, nor the GOVERNEMNT, will tell me one god damned thing about how to behave. SO you can take your elitist attitude and go sell it somewhere else because we are all stocked up here in America with that bullshit.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien Nope: It is about who I give permission to do what I direct them to do with MY BODY. If my illness goes terminal, not YOU, nor the GOVERNEMNT, will tell me one god damned thing about how to behave. SO you can take your elitist attitude and go sell it somewhere else because we are all stocked up here in America with that bullshit.

Can you direct a paid partner to sexually gratify you?

Can you permit a 12 year old to gratify you?

Can you permit an animal to gratify you?

Can you permit a person to kill you, with the person doing the killing absolved of all responsibility?

The people have spoken in these areas, via their elected representatives. No credible effort has risen to challenge the laws enacted on their behalf concerning the first three examples.

Why do you assert that a similar interest does not hold for the fourth?

Indeed, this thread concerns a LAW, a governmental interest, which supports allowing this activity. If, as you assert, the government has no say in the matter, then what impact does this law have?

Interesting debate technique. Some disagrees with you, and you curse, assume, insult, and blaspheme. Do you find that this helps your argument?

P.S. To both you and Tivodan; It may interest you to note that I have made no statement in disagreement with the law upheld in this case. Yet you both seem to assume I have. My argument is with what I feel to be a specious argument about the people’s ability to do whatever they want with their body with no input from our representative government. We have a number of laws that we, the people have decided to support that put controls upon what we can do with our bodies as well what we can allow others to do with them.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 Can you direct a paid partner to sexually gratify you? Can you permit a 12 year old to gratify you? Can you permit an animal to gratify you? Can you permit a person to kill you, with the person doing the killing absolved of all responsibility? The people have spoken in these areas, via their elected representatives. No credible effort has risen to challenge the laws enacted on their behalf concerning the first three examples. Why do you assert that a similar interest does not hold for the fourth? Indeed, this thread concerns a LAW, a governmental interest, which supports allowing this activity. If, as you assert, the government has no say in the matter, then what impact does this law have? Interesting debate technique. Some disagrees with you, and you curse, assume, insult, and blaspheme. Do you find that this helps your argument? P.S. To both you and Tivodan; It may interest you to note that I have made no statement in disagreement with the law upheld in this case. Yet you both seem to assume I have. My argument is with what I feel to be a specious argument about the people’s ability to do whatever they want with their body with no input from our representative government. We have a number of laws that we, the people have decided to support that put controls upon what we can do with our bodies as well what we can allow others to do with them.

Your questions regarding sexual matters are off topic and don't apply to this question. I will respond if you stay within the confines of the question in the thread.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien Your questions regarding sexual matters are off topic and don't apply to this question. I will respond if you stay within the confines of the question in the thread.

This assertion is ridiculous. You stated emphatically that “not YOU, nor the GOVERNEMNT, will tell me one god damned thing about how to behave.”

I responded to you by demonstrating that we have, in several instances, by way of our representatives, allowed the government to regulate our behavior.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 The problem with assisted suicide isn't normative -- I think that people should have that liberty. The problem is that when applied, this opens the door for gross violations of liberty. People taking advantage of others for financial gain, or even petty revenge... it's just danergous. I think the problem deserves a lot of attention.

I agree, Rave. The devil is in the details. We are just hanging ourselves out for abuse of the system. Can we vision people killing kids in comas for their organs? Would it happen? Likely. Could people who might recover select suicide just because they were tired of being ill? Or could they decide to bag themselves because they couldn't pay the medical bills? Could heirs murder their grandparents because their inheritance was being eaten up by medical bills? Sure it'd happen. We could really have a mess on our hands.

However, anyone who has seen a loved one linger in pain with no chance of recovery (as I have) has some sympathy with the intent of this law. I had an urge to put a pillow over my Dad's face. I dearly loved the man.

I also think that when we eventually find ourselves in the death bed situation (it's in most of our futures) that we'd just as soon get it over with. I can hear myself saying, "Hey, doc slip me the juice will ya. This laying around waiting to kick off is bull shit."

The question about the assisted suicide law is problematic. I see both sides of the argument, but truthfully I don't know which way to go. And I live in Oregon.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Apeman81 I responded to you by demonstrating that we have, in several instances, by way of our representatives, allowed the government to regulate our behavior.

Yeah, I'd sure like to be able to hunt deer in June, or drive on the left side of the road, or allow my ten year old son to buy and guzzle Johnny Walker Red.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Logjam Yeah, I'd sure like to be able to hunt deer in June, or drive on the left side of the road, or allow my ten year old son to buy and guzzle Johnny Walker Red.

Johnny Walker Red for a 10 year old? I think I'd go with the black, myself

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 This assertion is ridiculous. You stated emphatically that “not YOU, nor the GOVERNEMNT, will tell me one god damned thing about how to behave.” I responded to you by demonstrating that we have, in several instances, by way of our representatives, allowed the government to regulate our behavior.

You have quoted me correctly within the context of the thread. My statement stands within its context. However, your remarks take the discussion outside the thread. Understand the difference?

Btw, the only thing that is ridiculous here is your attempting to take my remarks out of context and then applying your conclusions to them. I don't fall for this crap, so please don't waste your time.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien You have quoted me correctly within the context of the thread. My statement stands within its context. However, your remarks take the discussion outside the thread. Understand the difference? Btw, the only thing that is ridiculous here is your attempting to take my remarks out of context and then applying your conclusions to them. I don't fall for this crap, so please don't waste your time.

This thread concerns a LAW, a governmental interest, which supports allowing this activity. If, as you assert, the government has no say in the matter, then what impact does this law have?

[brien]

Quote by: Logjam I agree, Rave. The devil is in the details. We are just hanging ourselves out for abuse of the system. Can we vision people killing kids in comas for their organs? Would it happen? Likely. Could people who might recover select suicide just because they were tired of being ill? Or could they decide to bag themselves because they couldn't pay the medical bills? Could heirs murder their grandparents because their inheritance was being eaten up by medical bills? Sure it'd happen. We could really have a mess on our hands. However, anyone who has seen a loved one linger in pain with no chance of recovery (as I have) has some sympathy with the intent of this law. I had an urge to put a pillow over my Dad's face. I dearly loved the man. I also think that when we eventually find ourselves in the death bed situation (it's in most of our futures) that we'd just as soon get it over with. I can hear myself saying, "Hey, doc slip me the juice will ya. This laying around waiting to kick off is bull shit." The question about the assisted suicide law is problematic. I see both sides of the argument, but truthfully I don't know which way to go. And I live in Oregon.

Your post is intelligent as opposed to some others I have seen here. I can only speak for myself within the context of the question here as it relates to me. I will tell you, as a cancer survivor, if my illness turns terminal, which it may in the future, I am fully prepared to do what I deem best for myself without regard to the consequences from the government. I also think that I can find a Physician that is willing to assist me in my time of need should I require assistance. Thankfully, the government doesn't intimidate everyone in America, and there are brave people who will not allow the government to bully them into moral positions they don't agree with here.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 This thread concerns a LAW, a governmental interest, which supports allowing this activity. If, as you assert, the government has no say in the matter, then what impact does this law have?

You listed laws governing sexual activity. No relation here. This law has no impact upon me as I have stated before because I will not allow the government to interfere into what I regard as a private matter between myself, and a Physician, should I require one. I don't need or want, YOU, ANYONE ELSE, or the GOVERNMENT tellling me what I can, or can't do ,with my body WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS QUESTION. It is merely elitist in nature for others to dictate what one can or can't do here. Just who do you think you are to attempt to dictate the terms of someone's demise. It is bad enough I have to deal with Democratic politicians who think they are God, but for ordinary citizens to act this way is very disturbing and offensive..

[Samildanach]

The method must destroy the organs of the person who wants to die.

[Apeman81]

Your desire to exclude what you do with your body in this context from allowing the people to set the standards and norms of behavior, by way of the representative government, as they do within other contexts, is just that, your desire.

You have every right to that desire, to voice that desire, and to join with other to establish that desire as law. Until such time as such is done, the people have reserved their right to regulate your actions in this context, as it has in the others that I pointed out. Hence the law that is the basis of this thread.

Naturally, in light of your actions in regards to the discontinuance of your existence, such laws become moot as applicable to you once you have succeeded in your desire.

What does not become moot is the people’s interest in the actions of any that may have assisted you in ending your life. The right of the people as a collective to set standards and norms is not trumped by your desire.

In Oregon, the people have spoken to allow you to enlist the aid of another to end your life. It is by the law they passed that such may be done, not by any individual’s desire. It is easy for the deceased, but what the living assistant may face is up to the people.

“Just who do you think you are to attempt to dictate the terms of someone's demise.”

I think I am a citizen of the United States. As such, I have the right; in fact I feel it is our duty, to put my two cents into the pot that collectively establishes the standards and norms by which our society survives. No one else is better suited to voice my opinion. No one else is more deserving of having an opinion. And no one else is less deserving of having an opinion. What becomes the standard is the collective position established from all of our opinions.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Apeman81 Johnny Walker Red for a 10 year old? I think I'd go with the black, myself

Well, I don't know about yours, but my kid prefers the Red. It's creamier.

[tusaki]

We've had legal euthanasia here since 2002 and tolerated euthanasia here for over 20 years. (tolerated as in: unlikely to be punished.. heh.. it's a dutch thing I guess...). And I've been close to a couple of cases. Truly, it is mercy. I cannot state that enough. Here you must have 3 doctors agreeing that the person is inhumanely suffering and has no hope of improvement. Also, the person him/herself must request the eathanasia and do so repeatedly over a period of time. I've not ever heard of no abuses by family members nor have I heard of the law being abused for organ harvesting. I believe such extreme cases are just hypothetical and only used by opponents of eutanesia as a scare tactic. For the cases which I have witnessed, it was mercy and I feel it was the right choice those persons made. Dieing in dignity must be worth something.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 Your desire to exclude what you do with your body in this context from allowing the people to set the standards and norms of behavior, by way of the representative government, as they do within other contexts, is just that, your desire. You have every right to that desire, to voice that desire, and to join with other to establish that desire as law. Until such time as such is done, the people have reserved their right to regulate your actions in this context, as it has in the others that I pointed out. Hence the law that is the basis of this thread. Naturally, in light of your actions in regards to the discontinuance of your existence, such laws become moot as applicable to you once you have succeeded in your desire. What does not become moot is the people’s interest in the actions of any that may have assisted you in ending your life. The right of the people as a collective to set standards and norms is not trumped by your desire. In Oregon, the people have spoken to allow you to enlist the aid of another to end your life. It is by the law they passed that such may be done, not by any individual’s desire. It is easy for the deceased, but what the living assistant may face is up to the people. “Just who do you think you are to attempt to dictate the terms of someone's demise.” I think I am a citizen of the United States. As such, I have the right; in fact I feel it is our duty, to put my two cents into the pot that collectively establishes the standards and norms by which our society survives. No one else is better suited to voice my opinion. No one else is more deserving of having an opinion. And no one else is less deserving of having an opinion. What becomes the standard is the collective position established from all of our opinions.

You are confusing the issue again. I am not, nor have I written, that I would surpress your opinions. But it stops right there. You and your "collective opinions" can go and demonstrate down on the village square, or do what ever it is that your collective people do, but I won't submit to you and your collective opinions. Make all of the laws you desire but if I don't care to follow them in this matter, I will not do it. I care not one iota for your "norm". I am an individual and no collective will ever force me to think any other way than in my own individual spirit.

You wrote: The right of the people as a collective to set standards and norms is not trumped by your desire.


I write: In this matter it is, and nothing you or your collective can do, will ever stop me from it. Collectives, indeed. They may set your standards in this matter, but they don't mine. My individuality takes precedence over your collective elitist pablum that tries to force me into behaving how your collective wants me to act. Sorry. I will stand up when you sit down in this matter. It is my right as an individual to disagree with the government when I think it is wrong. But you go ahead and flow with your collectives if it make you feel good and righteous.

Sorry. I disagree that you have any right whatsoever to dictate your terms, or your collective terms of existence in this matter upon another human being. You can try, with all your elitist might, but people like me will fight you to the bitter end.

I'll leave you with a quote:

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may."

I'll let you attempt to figure who said this.

Done.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien You are confusing the issue again. I am not, nor have I written, that I would surpress your opinions. But it stops right there. You and your "collective opinions" can go and demonstrate down on the village square, or do what ever it is that your collective people do, but I won't submit to you and your collective opinions. Make all of the laws you desire but if I don't care to follow them in this matter, I will not do it. I care not one iota for your "norm". I am an individual and no collective will ever force me to think any other way than in my own individual spirit. You wrote: The right of the people as a collective to set standards and norms is not trumped by your desire. I write: In this matter it is, and nothing you or your collective can do, will ever stop me from it. Collectives, indeed. They may set your standards in this matter, but they don't mine. My individuality takes precedence over your collective elitist pablum that tries to force me into behaving how your collective wants me to act. Sorry. I will stand up when you sit down in this matter. It is my right as an individual to disagree with the government when I think it is wrong. But you go ahead and flow with your collectives if it make you feel good and righteous. Sorry. I disagree that you have any right whatsoever to dictate your terms, or your collective terms of existence in this matter upon another human being. You can try, with all your elitist might, but people like me will fight you to the bitter end. I'll leave you with a quote: "Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, bith to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may." I'll let you attempt to figure who said this. Done.

Mark Twain.

[Apeman81]

The issue in question is not so simple a matter as what you can or will do to yourelf, but rather what other's may legally to do you.

You are your own man, an will do as you damn well please. You are at liberty to do so.

But what of the other fellow?

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 The issue in question is not so simple a matter as what you can or will do to yourelf, but rather what other's may legally to do you. You are your own man, an will do as you damn well please. You are at liberty to do so. But what of the other fellow?

Ding ding ding ding ding..

I am not concerned for the other fellow so much as to dictate what he/she must think. I will leave it to him/her to make their own decision and if it happens to agree with mine, then fine. If it doesn't, then that's fine also..

Good call on the Twain quote.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien Ding ding ding ding ding.. I am not concerned for the other fellow so much as to dictate what he/she must think. I will leave it to him/her to make their own decision and if it happens to agree with mine, then fine. If it doesn't, then that's fine also.. Good call on the Twain quote.

Thank you for the reasoned debate. (and the qoute dings)

We all possess (in my belief, as a result of God's design) free will. Each of us can decide to abide by or defy the will of the people. We must only recognize that the people can and sometimes will react to our defiance.

While I would not employ suicide, because as Mark Twain once said, " I do see that there is an argument against suicide: the grief of the worshipers left behind, the awful famine in their hearts, these are too costly terms for the release." , I can see myself being sorely tempted to help another to achieve that goal under extreme circumstances.

Good luck (and prayers, with hope they do not offend) in that your affliction never put you in the circumstance to make that decision.

Thanks again