Should we have the right to legally end our own lives ? I think we should after seeing yet another very sick guy lose against the courts in his bid to die. Would you do the same thing if you were in his situation ? Is it right or wrong ?
-
-
Absolutely... -
Yes we should"As pornographers we must act responsibly! ;))"- Nickatilynx
I might be Old and Tired, but at least I don't support a whiney cuntComment
-
It should 100% be our choice. To deny us of that right is criminal.
Really, how can ANYONE or ANY GOVERNMENT tell you when you should die, when it's by your terms? The government is certainly allowed to kill you when they see fit if you break certain laws, so why can't you have the same right?
We are so enslaved we're not even permitted to end our own life. Think about that for a minute.Comment
-
I agree 100%. The guy I think the OP is talking about is the guy in England who lost his court battle last week and in the end suffered probably more than he should have. By all accounts, he was a straight up guy, paid his taxes, never in any trouble with the Police, a good citizen. If he decided it was his time, no one should be able to take that away from him. It would take a lot for me to decide I was ready to die but if I had some incurable sickness, I'd want to end it before it got rough.Comment
-
What they're gonna do about it, sue your corpse?marc@pornerbrosDOTcom
marc@givemegayDOTcom
ICQ: 631-877-938
Resistance is futile. Lower your domains and surrender your scripts. Prepare to be assimilatedComment
-
Yep it is the guy I am talking about. He ended up starving himself and then caught pneumonia. I think one of the main reasons they wont legalize it over here is because of the fear of a "forced death" on a sick person from family or other relatives.
In this guys case he should have been aloud to die with dignity and not have to starve himself, and yep DWB you are correct about our governmentComment
-
The legal implications would be huge.
Let's say I am on my death bed and I decide to end my own life. This is done without consulting my wife or my family. After the fact my wife would have the legal right to sue, claiming I was on medication and that the hospital shouldn't have granted my request.
I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying the reason we haven't made it legal is because of the legal issues surrounding it.Herschel Savage
Brooklyn, NYComment
-
you can always die.Don't let greediness blur your vision | You gotta let some shit slide
icq - 441-456-888Comment
-
It depends on the quality of life. If the person is in very poor health and has to be treated daily with no hope of getting better yes. Not mention tax payers pay a ton to keep them alive and everyone knows hospital bills are expensive.
If one is just depressed no.Chaturbate Affiliate Support: [email protected]Comment
-
Comment
-
Who would they be suing? I think the guy wanted to be able to take a dose of medication that would kill him. It's legal in other European countries including Switzerland, lots of people go there to die. They bring you a small shot like glass of liquid, you swallow it and you die free of pain. I think everyone should have the right to decide that, so long as it is for the right reasons ie an incurable sickness.Comment
-
Utter lunacy for the high court or any government to decide this. If an Individual is of such poor health where he/she is terminally ill, the option of ending a life to avoid further pain/suffering should absolutely be available.
The people in power would argue that it would open the floodgates but each case would be unique and as such each would be judged accordingly.SeedyMedia.com - Online Adult Solutions. Providers of Adult Traffic & Advertising.
Contact Us Here For All Enquiries. Email [email protected] | ICQ 605443124Comment
-
I know it might seem like it's not connected.. but this is why some of us are against the death penalty. We see it as an end to suffering.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
Comment
-
No simple answer in this day and age. It should be the choice of the person suffering, but you just know some family member will disagree and sue whomever helps a person die.
Or they'll try and get the person suffering ruled as incompetent and force them to be kept alive.
Religious fanatics wills say that it's against someone's religion.
Should be a simple decision but that goes away once other people get involved.Comment
-
We can choose to end the life of a suffering pet, but cannot choose to ask for help in ending our own when we are suffering. Pure bullshit!
I will just do what Javier Bardem's character does at the end of The Sea Inside. Video myself saying that I am doing this of my own free will, and with no outside influence. Have a cup of water mixed with a deadly agent placed where my lips can reach it and suck it down on my own. If I can't do that, then my DNR and other legal documents will keep family members from keeping me alive in those cases.No OneComment
-
so i should have the right to smack you around like a bitch and kick you in the head? it's my body right?Originally posted by JohnnyClips
stick to arguing with preschoolers, at least you would stand a chance on issues they aren't old enough to comprehend yet--which is close to where your at anyway.webmaster at pimproll dot comComment
-
They don't frown as much on "assisted suicide" where the person can manage this themselves... it's the act that he can't but through communication that he clearly does not want to live but can't do this without the direct help of a relative, they will be charged with causing his death.
he was a vibrant guy and is reduced to this state where his mind is active but his body is paralysed neck down... I'd find it hard to continue, he was visibly upset when the court ruling made it clear his loved ones would be charged with his death if they helped him.
This should be a special case, he has fought for this for an age, let him have the dignity to clearly choose not to continue in his own private hell.Comment
-
The right to self ownership entails that you have the right to end your own life. It's your body, so it's you right to decide. As long as you do not cause damage to another human being or his property (for example by landing on him or his car after jumping of the empire state building) you are free to do whatever you want with your own body.Comment
-
"Quality of life" is purely subjective and therefor should not and can not be basis for a "rule" or "law".
Some people will be perfectly happy playing with their jigsaw puzzles all day long while others need excitement. Some people will be happy on their own, while others get depressed if they don't have other people (their family for example) around them. Some people like to travel while for others merely the idea of leaving their home town is enough to cause them a lot of stress. What's relaxing for one person, another one will find boring. etc.
There's no way to measure people's "level of happiness" or "the quality of their life".Comment
-
There should be some legal test to see are you nuts, after you pass it, you can apply for end of your life !Comment
-
The problem is it's not a simple thing.
It's easy to make up scenarios where you're mentally capable enough to decide for yourself. But after the first time it's allowed, in say a situation like this one, or after a few situations like this, when it becomes normal, and accepted, and people are used to it, that's when the checks and balances start to slide and people start coming up with new reasons for people to die, and it's no longer necessarily the person who is 'ill' who is deciding. Or even necessary to be ill, to "die" (be killed).
Already someone in this thread has mentioned being a burden on the taxpayer as a factor in whether someone should be "allowed to die" (be killed).Comment
-
Yes, we should. Dr Jack Kevorkian, who I had the pleasure of meeting briefly, was a man ahead of his time. We put animals out of their misery but humans deserve to suffer?Comment
-
You arent getting what im saying. If one can play a jigsaw puzzle they are fine.
This is a great article http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ors-choose-dieChaturbate Affiliate Support: [email protected]Comment
-
Tony Nicklinson R.I.P.Comment
-
No, then you'd be violating his property rights. If he agrees to let you kick him in the head, then that's fine. If 2 people voluntarily agree to kick the shit out of each other or to fuck each other in the ass, then no rights are being violated. If one person asks another person to shoot him in the head or give him a lethal injection and the other person agrees to do it, then no rights are being violated.
The Romans used to see 'rights' and 'obligations' as 2 sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. Because you own your own body (you have a property right), others have the obligation to respect that property right. Other people can't hit you, harvest your organs or rape you, because then they'd be violating your property right.
When someone does violate that property right, you have the right to act against him because by not fulfilling his obligation to you (by not respecting your property rights), he released you of the obligation to respect his property right. In other words, if he attacked you and tried to kick you, you'd have the right to defend yourself (and if necessary use force to do so) because he initiated an act of aggression. However, you can't just walk up to a random person and kick him because in that case you'd be the one initiating the act of aggression.
I know that most people no longer think in terms of property rights and self ownership... and that's a shame, because ultimately all western legal systems were originally built on those foundations. The foundations are strong, but sadly over time, enormous skyscrapers of legislation have been built on those foundations and today most people are more interested in hiding in the many rooms of those skyscrapers and doing whatever they think they can get away than in respecting their fellow man's boundaries.Comment
-
That's the point. You can't say that someone's life is worth living because "he's still able to play a jigsaw puzzle" or "still able to wipe his own ass".
The question is not if someone is still able to perform certain functions. The question is if someone is allowed to determine how to live his own life (as long as he does not cause damage to another human or his property of course).
Only the person in question can decide if his life is worth living. Only he can decide if he still sees value in his life. Only he can decide if he's willing to live with the pain or limitations he's burdened with.
You can of course disagree with his decision, but you can't force your idea of what is a "life worth living" onto him.Comment
-
We don't need to establish a special "right to die" and you can't force a doctor to kill someone against this will.
The right to self ownership already entails that people have the right to end their own life. It also means that people can voluntarily form an agreement with other people who are willing to help them die.Comment
-
And what if nobody conveniently agrees to help? Not much of a 'right' then, is it, if you can't enforce it?Comment
-
Having the right to use your own body does not entail a guarantee that every action you take using your body will have the outcome you desired. You may decide to clime a mountain, but that's no guarantee that you'll reach the top. It also doesn't mean that other people are obligated to help you reach the top.
The second part of your question has deeper philosophical implications. A right does not end being a right if someone manages to violate it or if you fail to achieve certain goals you set for yourself. If a 'right' were only a 'right' if you were able to enforce it or a certain outcome then might would make right and the law of the jungle would apply. In that case rape and murder would be ok because the victim wasn't able enforce his or her rights and he or she therefor ended up loosing his or her rights.Comment
-
If you make euthanasia illegal than you will not stop people from killing themselves. They will find a way to do it and that will usually be a lot more painful and messier than when they would have their doctor there to assist them.
Comment
-
In your house are over a 100 items that can kill you. Just pick one.Don't let greediness blur your vision | You gotta let some shit slide
icq - 441-456-888Comment
-
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More
Unparked domains burning a hole in your pocket? 5 Simple Ways to Make Easy $$$ from Unused DomainsComment
-
There's no way for you or I to measure another human being's quality of life or, more specifically, the level of their despair.
But they sure as hell can.
Three words: Notarized Living Wills
Everyone should be required to make their wishes known regarding such while they're still of sound mind.
This would eliminate the need for guessing and second guessing later on.Comment
-
why ask for permission ?
i mean its not all that hard to off yourself unless your an idiot
Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]Comment
-
Comment
-
It's a SIN to kill yourself , I wouldn't really want that one over my headComment
-
We should, but we have to be careful as to how far this will go 50 years from now; is this the thin end of a wedge? i.e. compulsory end to life at a specific advanced age or low level of health. Is this to eventually remove useless eaters from the herd?Comment
-
-
-
When it comes time, I will not be at the mercy of a rest home or this filthy government......I have a special bullet for the end and will go the way I see fit
Amateur ContentICQ: 292 356 077Comment
-
Why would you? You don't have the right to put what you want in your body, smoke what you want, drink what you want etc. You have already given up the idea that you own any of your property, the government can tax it away at will. So what would give you the idea that you have the right to die? lol
Comment
-
If you got the balls to do it there is no discussion necessary.
Die of disease slowly in pain or end it has always been your decision.
If you want your wife and kids to get the insurance money you die slowly it's your choice.
Most places suicide with good cause is illegal and will probably always be.Comment
-
Try seeing someone you love just sit thier and not be able to move, its a fucking joke we cannot end a life because of this...Comment
-
We are all under the delusion that we live in democratic countries where the will of the people comes first. We have representative government, we vote for people, they do what they're told by their political masters. I understand that even with technology now making it possible for citizens to vote from home, vote from their phones, that to run a country/state effectively it's better we not vote on every piece of legislation.
BUT on very important personal and moral issues - there should be a national referendum held every 5 years on those issues. The right to die would be at the top of the list along with the death penalty. I believe those who support the right to die would win a national vote.
Not sure if we should be allowed to vote directly on going to war or not.I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!Comment
-
Comment
-
I'm glad the Silk Road exists online, I am sure through that site you can buy that drug from Mexico they call 'death in a bottle', it's the drug the state uses to execute by lethal injection - it used to be a cocktail mixed with another drug but the European drug company who makes it now refuses to sell it to the US for use in executions. So now they use only this 'death in a bottle' drug alone. It's quick and painless.
What a person's feelings are about their own plans if they find themselves facing a prolonged terminal illness is one thing, when that day does arrive I am sure many change their opinion, the will to live/survive is strong in people, as is the fear of death for many.I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!Comment
Comment