Re: The right to die : Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:50 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

Earlier this week, the Mail reported about a Christian family who have lost a legal battle to keep their son on life-support equipment. The esteemed judge declared that the doctors knew best and that their decision was sovereign.

No one, I repeat no one, has the authority to take another human being’s life. It is so typical of mankind that we try to play God.

So it was your Gods choice to end this lads life, but us humans playing God, keeping him alive is OK?

Works both ways you know...

Oh, and "Who put the doctors in charge? Or the judge?", that'll be God again i suspect.

Re: The right to die : Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:01 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

Who put the doctors in charge? Or the judge?

Well, the Queen put the judge in charge, who is Defender of the Faith and was herself appointed by God.

So effectively, God put them in charge.

Re: The right to die : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:52 pm  

kirkstaller wrote: In the wake of the Tony Nicklinson verdict yesterday, the debate has reopened about the thorny issue of assisted suicide. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nicklinson Most commentators have said that they are enormously empathetic of Tony’s situation and that they would not wish his plight on their worst enemy. I agree with this wholeheartedly. But human life is sacred. It is a gift from God. It is not to be ended on a whim. That applies to babies in the womb, to prisoners on death row, and, sadly, to people like Tony Nicklinson. Tony faces a frightening and torturous life, but it is life nonetheless. I wish him well and I pray one day he gets to grips with his condition and enjoys the life God has given him. That may be scary for him, but the alternative is much more frightening. The reaction of most people I know, including those who have commented on Polly Toynbee’s article, is that life is something which can be weighed, measured and, if deemed unsatisfactory, curtailed. Earlier this week, the Mail reported about a Christian family who have lost a legal battle to keep their son on life-support equipment. The esteemed judge declared that the doctors knew best and that their decision was sovereign. Who put the doctors in charge? Or the judge? No one, I repeat no one, has the authority to take another human being’s life. It is so typical of mankind that we try to play God. I pray for Tony. I pray for the family of the Christian boy. But most of all, I pray for humanity and hope that we soon recognise that life is not something that can be flicked on and off as easily as a light switch. You really are a sucker for punishment here aren't you ?

kirkstaller wrote: In the wake of the Tony Nicklinson verdict yesterday, the debate has reopened about the thorny issue of assisted suicide. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nicklinson Most commentators have said that they are enormously empathetic of Tony’s situation and that they would not wish his plight on their worst enemy. I agree with this wholeheartedly. But human life is sacred. It is a gift from God. It is not to be ended on a whim. That applies to babies in the womb, to prisoners on death row, and, sadly, to people like Tony Nicklinson. Tony faces a frightening and torturous life, but it is life nonetheless. I wish him well and I pray one day he gets to grips with his condition and enjoys the life God has given him. That may be scary for him, but the alternative is much more frightening. The reaction of most people I know, including those who have commented on Polly Toynbee’s article, is that life is something which can be weighed, measured and, if deemed unsatisfactory, curtailed. Earlier this week, the Mail reported about a Christian family who have lost a legal battle to keep their son on life-support equipment. The esteemed judge declared that the doctors knew best and that their decision was sovereign. Who put the doctors in charge? Or the judge? No one, I repeat no one, has the authority to take another human being’s life. It is so typical of mankind that we try to play God. I pray for Tony. I pray for the family of the Christian boy. But most of all, I pray for humanity and hope that we soon recognise that life is not something that can be flicked on and off as easily as a light switch. You really are a sucker for punishment here aren't you ?

Re: The right to die : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:57 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

No one, I repeat no one, has the authority to take another human being’s life. It is so typical of mankind that we try to play God.

Who put the doctors in charge? Or the judge?

logically inconsistent book of bronze age myths you inexplicably believe to be infallible wrote:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

It seems God put them in charge. Also if you believe the above passage to be true, does that not mean that when the relevant authorities finally decide euthanasia is ok, you must agree?

Also, i find it is best to use preface personal opinions with phrases like: 'i believe that...' 'in my warped opinion...' 'according to the bible...' because continually portraying opinion as fact only makes you look like a fool who cannot distinguish between the two.

Re: The right to die : Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:44 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

Tony faces a frightening and torturous life, but it is life nonetheless.

But it's HIS life!

The Government can't rule that I can't quit my job, or that I can't up sticks and move or choose to go home with that sleazy looking girl in the bar.

Until now, he has made every single choice in his life bar being born, and the Courts had nothing to do with that. Now he's saying he WANTS to do something with HIS life and HIS body and he's being told he can't, even though he's pursuing the correct paths and trying to do it legally.

And you can say all you want about GOD giving him his life, but it's HIS. HE can choose. God also vreated the Salem Witch Trials and Death by Execution in your book....was that correct?

Is this the face of a man who should be cherishing what 'God' gave him?



Bullshit! Yes, it opens a can of worms, but this is an important milestone. People commit suicide every day. He has not. He has said to the powers that be: "I am unhappy, and I wish to die". I think he deserves it more than Sylvia who thinks she's depressed because her boyfriend of six months dumped her.

It's just human self righteousness. We are happy to put down animals that are suffering as it is the 'humane' thing to do, but when it comes to assisting our own, it's against the law. One of the reasons Nicklinson (and others I would imagine) wants to die is to not be a burden to his family and loved ones. He himself would want legal clarification that whoever administers this wouldn't be done for it. It's hardly easing his or their burden if he dies thinking there's a chance they'll go to prison for it.

This man is trapped. Functioning the same as you and I, but trapped. What a horrid existence.

HE should be able to decide what he wants from life, just like he had been able to up until his stroke.

Re: The right to die : Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:06 am  

So he should be thankful for the life that God gave him? Sitting in a chair doing f*ck all.

If God is so wonderful and mighty and loves the World then why are the people that suffer always the good, honest, hard working people when scruffy scrounging scrotes are allowed to live happy as Larry with handouts and benefits? Why do people like Michael Carroll win the Lottery whilst some people, even Christians and believers, continue to struggle and work every hour of every day?

Why does God sit there and watch countless people he so called loves suffer from horrible horrible ilnesses like cancer without providing a cure?

I'll tell you why, because he isn't f*cking real. There is no God. There is no heaven. There is no after life. When you or I or any other person on the planet dies we will either be burnt to a crisp or stuck in the ground to rot.

Re: The right to die : Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:11 am  

Anyway, back on topic.

I think he should be allowed to die, but I can understand the position of the Government. If they grant his family permission to die then where does it end and how do you confirm that you want to die? What is to stop me killing my parents and claiming it was their wish? There'd never be an end to it.

It must be horrible for his family to see him like that and know there's nothing they can do and I'd truly hate to be in that position.

Re: The right to die : Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:05 am  

cod'ead wrote:

The state is apparently quite content if he decides to starve himself to death

Again happy for him to be tortured. That is not a pleasant death (if there is such a thing).

Re: The right to die : Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:10 pm  

Conroy wrote:

I think he should be allowed to die, but I can understand the position of the Government. If they grant his family permission to die then where does it end and how do you confirm that you want to die? What is to stop me killing my parents and claiming it was their wish? There'd never be an end to it.

Pretty simple really, put a number of safeguards in place to ensure it genuinely is the will of the patient.

Even the most severely disabled can usually communicate in some manner - even if it's just by moving their eyes. A number of tests carried out by doctors, psychiatrists, consultants, etc to determine the condition and will of the patient and ensure they aren't being coerced in any manner.

If the the right to die is to be permitted, it must be under strict control. I doubt there are thousands of families queuing up to bump off their loved ones but it's literally a matter of life or death.

Re: The right to die : Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:30 pm  

I think kirkstaller gets off on this sort of thing with the responses he gets to his crackpot posts. He'd do quite well in the Bible belt of America.