I’ve never understood that mentality. If we see an animal suffering, we treat them humanely and help them pass to get them out of pain and end their suffering. But with people, you’re forced to hold out to the very end no matter how much pain you’re in or how much you’re suffering.
If someone is suffering or has a terminal disease and wants to end it all, they should be able to do so in a way that is as painless and comfortable for them as possible.
Its such a foolish thing equating it with murder. Thats like equating receiving a gift with stealing and hey there are all sorts of middle grounds with that too if you figure things like extortion and bribery.
I used to think that way until i learned that in uk some social workers suggest it as a legitimate solution for people that complain about the level of care they are receiveing. They really do say to patients that if they are not getting enough help they have that option.
No. Instead of thinking it won’t be miss-used and push the idea that there are no other considerations we need to take those issues into account. It’s not a handful of terrible people. The world is more complex than being 100% for/against something as you seem to imply.
I don’t think anyone expects it to be implemented without some regulations and protections to address malicious actors. Not to mention that if it is something that someone can assist with, the medical community will be very vocal in setting those up so that they can ensure that the risks are minimized through needing the consent of more than one doctor or something along those lines.
You are the one assuming that making it legal means a free for all wild west and that nobody has discussed the complexities and implications for decades already. This would just free up the possibility that someone could assist someone else without it automatically being considered premeditated murder.
The world is more complex than being 100% for/against something as you seem to imply.
I don’t think anyone expects it to be implemented without some regulations and protections to address malicious actors
Neither did I, but it already happened.
Don’t project your assumptions on to me, thanks.
project? LOL, who said this?
So instead of punishing the terrible people then someone who wants to end their suffering for good reasons should be prohibited?
I guess I should not take you seriously if you can’t even own your words. simpletons are usually this way. its either the best or the worst and they can’t even remember what they say.
I’ve never understood that mentality. If we see an animal suffering, we treat them humanely and help them pass to get them out of pain and end their suffering. But with people, you’re forced to hold out to the very end no matter how much pain you’re in or how much you’re suffering.
If someone is suffering or has a terminal disease and wants to end it all, they should be able to do so in a way that is as painless and comfortable for them as possible.
Its such a foolish thing equating it with murder. Thats like equating receiving a gift with stealing and hey there are all sorts of middle grounds with that too if you figure things like extortion and bribery.
I used to think that way until i learned that in uk some social workers suggest it as a legitimate solution for people that complain about the level of care they are receiveing. They really do say to patients that if they are not getting enough help they have that option.
So instead of punishing the terrible people then someone who wants to end their suffering for good reasons should be prohibited?
No. Instead of thinking it won’t be miss-used and push the idea that there are no other considerations we need to take those issues into account. It’s not a handful of terrible people. The world is more complex than being 100% for/against something as you seem to imply.
I don’t think anyone expects it to be implemented without some regulations and protections to address malicious actors. Not to mention that if it is something that someone can assist with, the medical community will be very vocal in setting those up so that they can ensure that the risks are minimized through needing the consent of more than one doctor or something along those lines.
You are the one assuming that making it legal means a free for all wild west and that nobody has discussed the complexities and implications for decades already. This would just free up the possibility that someone could assist someone else without it automatically being considered premeditated murder.
Don’t project your assumptions on to me, thanks.
looks like you missed the point.
Neither did I, but it already happened.
project? LOL, who said this?
I guess I should not take you seriously if you can’t even own your words. simpletons are usually this way. its either the best or the worst and they can’t even remember what they say.
K