That's it! You're really bloody irritating me Heltak! You hang around the forums criticising people's views for no apparent reason, and then justify your attacks by continually attempting to shove your "beliefs" down everybody's throats. You are one of these petty, small-minded people, who believes that if YOU think that something is true, then it must be so. Stop being a self-righteous, opinionated bastard, who criticises other people's posts because of your own insecurities. This has been coming for a long time; either shape-up, or get the hell of TLR.

Sorry for going off-topic mods (and Ed), but this rubbish has gone on for far too long.

Edited by - esquilax on 6/13/2004 9:14:47 PM

At this point in time, I don't a flying f**k about Heltak. I just ignore the twit. He's not worth the effort. Nobody is.

"Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived."

Esq if you want to rant you have my address.

Also tonight I'll post some parts of what I think make a good oath

As promised some of MY ideas
'
A doctor should preserve life for the greater good however easing of suffering should take presidence except in cases where to ease suffering creates the adverse affect (Happy pills etc)

Death to anyone even a killer is the taking of a life and not preservation

Life does not extend just to your own species

The advancement of cures whilst nescary should not endanger people needlessly

Um Musty, I've never been liked it's too complex to understand why.
-~-~-~-~
There is no Silicon Heaven! But where do all the calculators go ?

You could no more evade my wrath... than you could your own shadow!


Edited by - Heltak on 6/14/2004 8:50:03 AM

You're not a well liked chap are you Heltak? Why not have a go at placing your views on the table rather than slaming them down. You'd be amazed at how receptive people can be when you're nice to them.

One argument against the death penalty in the United States is that it gets handed out to minorities more than whites. My answer is that we need to execute more white murderers to make it fair. If twelve people find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that's good enough for me. I say kill them all and let God sort them out. The Bible backs me up on this.

As to the subject of euthanasia, it took me until I was 15 to figure out that when they said that word they weren't saying "youth in Asia". I never could figure out why so many people gave a crap about what was happening to kids in Japan. I don't see why you need a doctor to kill yourself. If you want to die so bad, go drink a glass of Drano. I think euthanasia ties to abortion, they both deal with getting rid of people who aren't convenient to have around, and I think they both cheapen life. I'm not in favor of either.

Let's get those missiles ready to destroy the universe!!

"youth in Asia"

that's brilliant! I've got to remember that and use it sometime

@ Ugnaught: Euthanasia is recommended for those who are in tremendous pain and have been deemed untreatable or can barely use their own physical bodies. Doctors wouldn't euthanize people (as a category) who aren't doing anything for society. That would include lots of people other than the medically suffering.

Though I spent a paragraph corrected Ugnaught, I think that euthanasia isn't a great idea, because there's almost always a chance that people can be rescued. After all, there have been incredible things done by doctors when everyone thinks that the patient is doomed. Not to mention, I can see a huge problem in the process. If it were to be allowed, the patient or whoever is being considered for it should be allowed to decide if they want to try and keep going, see if their problems can be cured or at least treated somewhat, or to stop right then. I really wouldn't want someone else deciding my optional death. After all, I didn't do anything wrong; I should have power over if I live or die. And I would consider self-chosen euthanasia to be a form of suicide...something I really don't advocate and wouldn't consider, even if I were in tremendous pain.

Now, on the subject of the death penalty. I'm in favor of it. Some criminals get back on the streets or spend their lives in jail waiting for trials that take forever to come. Don't be hasty about justice; make sure the person is guilty, but then execute whatever punishment is needed. Lethal injection seems to be the most painless way of removing a criminal from society. It takes a LOT of money and resources to keep a person in jail for life, and you most certainly can't release them. After all, you can't trust a murderer in society. I mean, if I knew a former killer was in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be happy at all. Also, having a person waste away their lives in a jail cell, to me, is almost more inhumane than executing them. Once they're dead, they're dead. That's it. Sitting around in a cell and wasting your life away while the world is happy outside your building is torture, not to mention there's always a chance the criminal could escape.

I know this really has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath, but since we were on the above subjects, I guess I had to put in my two cents

Do as you wish; I will not give up.

Edited by - Aurora Firestorm on 6/14/2004 9:16:49 AM

*thwacks Ug* Don't get plolitical, hate to see this get locked. It's a medical area of dealing with it. Doctors have had to be involved even back when the chair was first used to vaify death.

"I think that euthanasia isn't a great idea, because there's almost always a chance that people can be rescued."

I think not, a-a. Terminally ill means exactly that, there is no chance of recovery.

however it does indeed impact the Hippocratic oath, but then again when Hippocrates came up with the idea, most adults didn't live past their 40s, and cancers etc were rare indeed. Euthanasia as we like to understand it is very much a modern concept that reflects our altered post-industrial values.

however to get back on topic, the moral problem of doctors assisting at executions has been extant for millenia. However re-reading Ed's post, it's clear that thereris a distinction between a doctor attending and a doctor taking part. But for the reasons stated in my above post, I see no moral issue with a doctor assisting at a state-sanctioned execution (even though I'm opposed to the death penalty)

and, for the record, I'm pro-choice on abortion, pro-voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, and anti-death penalty just so we all know where we stand..

..there is nothing better in life than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro..

Taw, Lepers and other old day deceases were considered terminal, yet today, many are curable, there fore in some, not all, cases there maybe a cure for it. In terms of Reagan, and his situation, brain cells were dyeing and no way to replace them, death is then, inevitable. Then the situation is in a gray area. I do understand a person not wanting to be a burden on someone else, hardly able to function, but, I leave that to the Higher one.

Edited by - Finalday on 6/14/2004 4:11:11 PM

Currently in the US, only the State of Oregon actually passed legislation by referendum which permits a physician to assist terminally ill patients to decide for themselves when and how to die as a means of avoiding a long, drawn out, painful and/or drug addled ending.

It is somewhat modelled after the Dutch law.

I don't think physicians should be confronted with the job of playing at god if that is how people look at it. But to provide a means for a patient to be able to end his/her suffering, to me, is not playing at god.

If you consider the end stage that people with Alzheimers experience, for example, you wonder whether it may have been better for sufferers of Alzeheimers AND their families may have had a less "tragic" ending if the Alzheimers sufferer were able to have his or her leave taking at a time when they were still lucid and able to have a meaningful good bye with loved ones.

Living Wills, after all, are very much legal and are intended to specify when physicians are to "pull the plug" so to speak.

Edited by - Indy11 on 6/14/2004 4:45:08 PM

It's a slippery topic, but a good one. First of all, I believe death penalty should not be abolished, since I don't like the idea of part of my taxes going to pay for the life of some murderer - geez, he or she takes a crap, and you're paying for the water they flush! Anyway, 100% sureness the person is really guilty as charged can only be guaranteed by an effective memory scan, which is not currently available, alas. Speaking of physicians making lethal injections - well, you need a person qualified for this, so I can't think of anybody without suitable medical background. The question is if this position should be established as a separate one (sth similar to an Executor). There aren't many physicians who would voluntarily go in for this. As for Hippocratic oath, the convict is not a patient, and as he or she still has to die, the physician assists in executing the convict in a painless manner, thus providing help in a way.

Wisdom comes with age. But sometimes age comes alone...