I think that's exactly the circumstance under which "assissted suicide" operates. People who were terminally sick, who have no hope of recovering, and who choose die rather than have the life slowly sucked out of them.Originally Posted by bipper
How anyone could claim that this is "murder" boggles my mind.
Last edited by Miriel; 10-07-2005 at 02:54 AM.
Pay attention to edlalalala. The doctors in question do NOT, in most cases, administer the drugs necessary to kill the patient. They just make them accessible. And if someone really wants to die, they're going to get the drugs anyway. Would you, as a passerby rather 1) They get the proper dosage from a physician and die comparatively painlessly or 2) They get an improper dosage from someone else and die a painful death, something which they were trying to avoid in the first place?
Signature by rubah. I think.
I think that's exactly the circumstance under which "assissted suicide" operates. People who were terminally sick, who have no hope of recovering, and who choose die rather than have the life slowly sucked out of them.
How anyone could claim that this is "murder" boggles my mind.
It has been used in other on more healthy patience. I mean, just those whom soffer from pain and/or other problems which are not terminal, but are a complete pain in the arse. I am not sure if these were states side or not, I would have to look em up. I belive Austria had a story like this.
Mercy via death is still murder. You inflict death, you kill, it is murder.
Bipper
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
In Oregon, it wasn't unlawful, and there wasn't any malice involved. Quite the opposite in fact.
Posting Permissions
