Thread Tools
Old October 23, 2003, 00:15   #61
molly bloom
King
 
molly bloom's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lundenwic
Posts: 2,719
An inaccurate title which trivializes the experience of those who died and suffered in Auschwitz and other extermination camps.

A thesis which confuses and conflates a state policy of genocide towards undesirables (the disabled, the mentally ill, 'racial' and sexual and political outcasts) with attempts to give dignity and control over their sick bodies back to individuals, and which utilises a hit and miss approach to history and philosophies to 'prove' its theory.

Well the Spartans exposed physically malformed infants, and Chinese peasants exposed/murdered female infants. Why not blame them for social utilitarianism? Of course, it doesn't have the pizzazz of 'Auschwitz in America' or 'Bergen-Belsen in Great Britain', and it's so much more exciting to tag someone whose ideology you disagree with as an ideological by-blow of National Socialist philosophies.

If I find myself terminally ill, with no conceivable cure, I intend to kill myself. I watched a friend die, doubly incontinent, blind, almost completely deaf, his brain destroyed by cytomegalo-virus and meningococcal disease. I have no intention of ending up like Nick- more importantly neither had he- but his mistake was not to draw up a living will, so that he could end his life with a semblance of dignity, rather than a drooling defaecating blob in a nappy, bib and with a labyrinth of tubes in his veins (those not collapsed from previous use) and with a cannula in his chest.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Hol.../disabled.html

http://www.disabilityhistory.org/t4prog.html
__________________
Cherish your youth. Mark Foley, 2002

I don't know what you're talking about by international law. G.W. Bush, 12/03
molly bloom is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 01:13   #62
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Tripledoc -
Quote:
Sorry for my former ranting.

What I tried to say was that there is a distintion to be made between what you would consider 'terminal patients' and patients, or non-patients for that matter, who are merely suffering from a loss in 'qualty of life' however that quality is decided upon.
Apology accepted

Yes, distinctions exist and should be made, but euthenasia, except for loony toons who decide to off retirement home occupants en masse, usually involves spouses who love their partner and don't want to see them suffer. Euthenasia has to be on a case by case basis, not illegal with zero tolerance. I wouldn't want it completely legal or illegal... But since a law can't deal with such ambiguities, jurors have to be able to nullify the law when prosecutors and judges can't use common sense for political reasons. Unfortunately jury nullification is demonised by those in power because it's the final check on government power envisioned by the Founders, and God knows the last thing politicians need are jurors getting in their way.

[/rant]
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 02:48   #63
Mr. Harley
Prince
 
Mr. Harley's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 819
While I found the various logical flaws in the original post disturbingly typical and familiar, they have been well refuted by prior postings. I have found little though dealing with this (except for Berzerker's one comment, thanks) :

Quote:
Ben Kenobi quoting TR :There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality.
Are we including Buddism? Technically, as I understand the term pagan as used by Christians and Moslems, it includes anyone who is not monotheistic. Are we including Janists, the Hindu individuals who try not to kill even an insect? They are genuine pagans, beleiving in a pantheistic religiion.

Are we including the many animist native American tribes, whom Theodore Roosevelt held in contempt and helped continue the policies to destroy their culture and language, tearing their children away from their mothers and forcing them into schools where they were beaten for speaking their language, or turned into legalized house slaves when adopted (not always, there were some people who genuinely cared - not enough).

Christian moralism, from its earliest times, has had an intolerant streak. Just read St. Augustine and his justifications for persecution of Jews. When it comes to Islam and pagans, read what Mohommed says is appropriate conduct - forcing them to convert or killing the men and enslaving the woman and children. Its going on across Africa right now, just look at the Sudan.

Please note that there are tolerant and loving Christians and Moslems who do not support the idea of government forcing their ideas of morality down my throat via legislation. Unfortunately it only takes the intolerant ones winning once, look at Iran. The United States is engaged on its own slippery slope, including Christain fundamentalists deliberately distorting science (the NIH and CDC web sites), via the Bush adminstration, to advocate their moral views. These include that abortion causes breast cancer (it doesn't) and that condoms don't protect versus STD's (they do except against human papilloma virus, and even there they help). They are willing to kill people - "condoms don't help against STD's" - to force their fundamentalist ideology of sexual abstinence only on those of us who do not share it. Thankfully there is a constitution, or at least what remains of one after Ashcroft and Scalia finish with it.
__________________
The worst form of insubordination is being right - Keith D., marine veteran. A dictator will starve to the last civilian - self-quoted
And on the eigth day, God realized it was Monday, and created caffeine. And behold, it was very good. - self-quoted
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry… I wish it were otherwise.
Mr. Harley is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 02:51   #64
Asher
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
President of the OT
 
Asher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 40,843
Quote:
It examines some of the causes of the Holocuast, asserting that it is through euthanasia in Germany, was the starting point.
OTOH, birth was the starting point for euthanasia, which was the starting point for the holocaust. Naturally, then, only Nazis are pro-life.
__________________
"I'll never doubt you again when it comes to hockey, [Prince] Asher." - Guynemer
Asher is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 04:37   #65
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Are we including Janists, the Hindu individuals who try not to kill even an insect?
Jains, I've seen these people on pilgrimmages. They use a brush to sweep the path before them to avoid stepping on bugs and they wear masks so they don't breathe bugs in. They eat only fruit that has fallen from trees and depend (Jainist priests anyway) largely on handouts of dried fruit. Their religion began after an Indian emporer fought a big and bloody battle around 200 AD I think, and as he walked the field of the slain, he felt great remorse at the loss of life and vowed never to kill again...apparently that meant anything...

That, to me, is the most moral of all religions (just not practical for large populations) and it's quite amazing how it's adherents have maintained the principle of "ahimsa" - non-violence. It usually doesn't take very long for a religion to become perverted by power seekers. Christianity remained largely consistent with Jesus' teachings up until Constantine gave it his approval and almost immediately 2 Christian armies faced off and slaughtered each other in the subsequent power grab...
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 04:45   #66
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Maybe its just me because Im an amoral person.

Why is killing considered so highly immoral? We need to do killing in order to live and survive.

Oh and jainist do try to avoid killing as best as they can, but they still commit killing of other life during their lifetime. You cant completely avoid killing other life beings.
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 08:10   #67
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
Quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
An inaccurate title which trivializes the experience of those who died and suffered in Auschwitz and other extermination camps.

A thesis which confuses and conflates a state policy of genocide towards undesirables (the disabled, the mentally ill, 'racial' and sexual and political outcasts) with attempts to give dignity and control over their sick bodies back to individuals, and which utilises a hit and miss approach to history and philosophies to 'prove' its theory.

Well the Spartans exposed physically malformed infants, and Chinese peasants exposed/murdered female infants. Why not blame them for social utilitarianism? Of course, it doesn't have the pizzazz of 'Auschwitz in America' or 'Bergen-Belsen in Great Britain', and it's so much more exciting to tag someone whose ideology you disagree with as an ideological by-blow of National Socialist philosophies.
Congrats Molly for this post. You are very eloquent, and you say my exact line of thought.
__________________
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Spiffor is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 09:40   #68
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 11:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc


According to a Danish page on palliative treatment the usual dose is 10mg morphine per night (repeated until effect is reached, whatever that means), but may be more depending on how long the patient has been given the medicine. usually other drugs are given as well in combination with morphine, to stimulate appetite and combat nausea.
I watched my friend's father die of cancer. He asked and received an overdose of morphine and he died the next day. My friend said; "I guess you could say that they killed my dad." Of course he was right. This happens in the United States without much fanfare and I personally find nothing wrong with it. The patient requested a steadily increasing dose and everyone knew the result.

The problem arises, in my opinion, when the state decides to help with the patient's "quality of life" by killing him. Living wills are the way to go with clear written instructions to the next of kin and attending physicians.
__________________
The Blind Atheist

Last edited by Lincoln; October 23, 2003 at 09:47.
Lincoln is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 09:50   #69
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln


I watched my friend's father die of cancer. He asked and received an overdose of morphine and he died the next day. My friend said; "I guess you could say that they killed my dad." Of course he was right. This happens in the United States without much fanfare and I personally find nothing wrong with it. The patient requested a steadily increasing dose and everyone knew the result.

To you results oriented secularists the difference may not matter. To some there is a world of difference between attempting to reduce someone's pain by administering a high dose of a painkiller, with the knowledge that death is a possible result, and administering something that doesnt reduce pain, and whose only purpose is death.
__________________
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
lord of the mark is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 10:05   #70
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 11:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
That's the first time I have been called a "results oriented secularist."
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 12:41   #71
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
ROFLMAO!

Probably won't happen very many times in your life, Lincoln - you should cherish this moment.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 14:54   #72
Ben Kenobi
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Succession GamesCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
with attempts to give dignity and control over their sick bodies back to individuals,
Molly:

They already have this. No need for euthanasia. The only cases that ever go to euthanasia are those in which the patient cannot express their desire so the state or someone else intervenes.

Hardly giving control back to them.

Quote:
Well the Spartans exposed physically malformed infants, and Chinese peasants exposed/murdered female infants. Why not blame them for social utilitarianism?
Broader essays have done so, to pinpoint this idea of a quality of life. This one has a focus on the comparison between the ethics of Nazi Germany and of those in America today.

Just because the essay does not address all instances, does not render the essay any less correct in the comparison it does choose to make.

Quote:
a state policy of genocide towards undesirables (the disabled, the mentally ill, 'racial' and sexual and political outcasts)
The two are not the same, the essay looks at the way people view the lives of the disabled, and concludes that this matches the attitude in Germany during the Holocaust, that such lives are not worth living.

Will we end up the same? I would argue that we already have. Rather than euthanasia preceding the holocaust, these attitudes antecede the genocide in America.
__________________
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette and Adam Smith you will be missed
"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - JRR Tolkein
Get busy living or get busy dying.
Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 15:21   #73
Ben Kenobi
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Succession GamesCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
That could have been minutes, or hours, or at most a day or two, but the simple fact was he had no chance of any recovery.
MtG:

I'm not a doctor, and I would hate to be put in your situation. However if all he had at most was a day or two of some brain function, he is very close to death, but not there yet. I think, without knowing more about the situation, that I would have kept him on life support for the day.

Quote:
CICU space from people who had a chance to recover.
And then we come to this. Scarce resources. Did they say they needed the room for someone else?

Quote:
Things that he wanted to do, like have some final "clear" time with his wife and two small kids, could only be done under much lower doses of painkillers that only had a minimal effect.
That's the decision of the patient, should they wish to refuse painkillers. If he wants lucid time, he ought to endure the pain. If he no longer wants the pain, he ought to take the painkillers.

I have absolutely no problem with a person who wants to spend his last moments outside of the hospital by refusing treatment. That is his right. What I do have a problem with is in the care of the hospital, that they would try to end the life of their patients.

Quote:
But whatever a patient decides about dealing with their situation, if they're competent to make that decision, and do so without external duress, we should support it, even if it means assisting them in ending their suffering.
Many times the patient is not competent. What should we do in these situations? I disagree with assisting in the suicide of anyone rather than trying to alleviate the source of their suffering.
__________________
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette and Adam Smith you will be missed
"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - JRR Tolkein
Get busy living or get busy dying.
Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 15:27   #74
Ben Kenobi
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Succession GamesCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
As a result of that treatment death might arive earlier, than it would otherwise have had had there been no alleviating the pain. There is nothing unethical about this since the medical profession has the responsibilty of alleviating the consequences of sickness, if no cure is feasable.
Tripledoc, LoTM, this is a very important clarification known as the doctrine of double effect. It differentiaties between palliative care and euthanasia.
__________________
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette and Adam Smith you will be missed
"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - JRR Tolkein
Get busy living or get busy dying.
Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 15:45   #75
Ben Kenobi
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Succession GamesCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
Ben Kenobi quoting TR :There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality.
Well, I can't claim that I wrote the article. It's not mine, nor do I know the author. I just recieved the essay from a friend.

Quote:
Are we including Janists, the Hindu individuals who try not to kill even an insect? They are genuine pagans, beleiving in a pantheistic religiion.
Christian ethics. I suggest you examine my location sig. It may allow you to anticipate my response. I would argue that in being a pacifist, that these Jains adhere to some of Christian ethics, though they do not believe in Christ.

Now, they go father than Christian ethics and confuse the role of man in the world. Man is given dominon over the animals, hence they ought to take care of them. They are still permitted to eat animals according to their needs.

Christian ethics do not equate with the practices of their followers. T. Roosevelt was a Christian, but it does not excuse his actions, which are outside of Christian morality.

Quote:
Christian moralism, from its earliest times, has had an intolerant streak. Just read St. Augustine and his justifications for persecution of Jews. When it comes to Islam and pagans, read what Mohommed says is appropriate conduct - forcing them to convert or killing the men and enslaving the woman and children. Its going on across Africa right now, just look at the Sudan.
"Justifications for persecutions of Jews." Could you cite his claim? Now, as for the Muslims you can hardly call that Christian morality since they persecute Christians in the Sudan.

Quote:
These include that abortion causes breast cancer (it doesn't)
Time to start a thread! I have many sources that cite the link, and I just met with the doctor who discovered the link. Dr. Joel Brind.

Quote:
and that condoms don't protect versus STD's (they do except against human papilloma virus, and even there they help).
HPV is an intersting case. Post in the condom thread and we can discuss that there.

Quote:
They are willing to kill people -
Trolls are fine. However I suggest you troll the proper thread. You can't fish without water.
__________________
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette and Adam Smith you will be missed
"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - JRR Tolkein
Get busy living or get busy dying.
Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 16:19   #76
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:

I'm not a doctor, and I would hate to be put in your situation. However if all he had at most was a day or two of some brain function, he is very close to death, but not there yet. I think, without knowing more about the situation, that I would have kept him on life support for the day.

And then we come to this. Scarce resources. Did they say they needed the room for someone else?
"Brain function" is kind of a troublesome matter. One problem that we have is that we really don't have an exact definition of the exact moment of death - in a dead organism, some cells can continute to function for quite a while, until oxygen loss becomes total and systemic - and some cells require far less oxygen than others. In this case, "brain function" meant that an EEG could detect some sporadic electrical activity, but nothing of a nature that we generally recognize as "life" at any level. Just irregular, very isolated, small electrical spikes.

Same thing with the heart- lung machine - I could see live patients on heart-lung devices (post surgical CICU is a single room, with the patients arranged daisy fashion pointing towards a central area with all of the various monitor and alarm connections, so that you can easily get to them, and get them into and out of surgery if you need to intervene surgically - these people aren't even closed up, so you can see the exposed organs underneath the translucent material used to cover them.) and see the difference. If you've ever seen an arterial wound (I've had one, orangy blood is rather shocking when you're not used to seeing it), it's rather amazing how much the color of blood changes depending on whether it's oxygenated or not. In my ex-father in law's case, the blood extracted came out the same oxygenated color as his arterial blood - they had to check the machine and do gas content testing on the blood to see that any oxygen was being absorbed at all.

So in his case, some cells were still alive, while the majority of cells in his body were already dead, and all his organs had gradually failed in the 18 hours since the arterial blockages. The moral-technological problem is that without a precise definition of death adequate to describe the exact transition from life to death, we can sustain some form of "life" support on someone already dead. Eventually, neuroscience will progress to where we can stimulate some responsive brain activity, and the problem with open heart procedures is that the normal vascular indications of life and death (heartrate, pulse, indications of respiration) are routinely terminated in live patients, as part of the surgical procedure - they're still alive, but on heart-lung life support until they're far enough along to transfer cardiorespiratory function back to their own bodies. It is amazing on the one hand, and a bit disturbing on the other, because the boundary between life and death is pretty blurred. In my ex-father in law's case, my conclusion, which the doctors let me reach, was that all that was left was some individual cellular function, and nothing at all systemic - no higher brain function, nor organ function of any kind.

Quote:
That's the decision of the patient, should they wish to refuse painkillers. If he wants lucid time, he ought to endure the pain. If he no longer wants the pain, he ought to take the painkillers.
And this gets back to the very simple question. Who has the right to impose their views on what the patient should or should not do, or should or should not endure?

Quote:
I have absolutely no problem with a person who wants to spend his last moments outside of the hospital by refusing treatment. That is his right. What I do have a problem with is in the care of the hospital, that they would try to end the life of their patients.
The question should be what does the patient desire? If "refusing treatment" means a slow, painful death, with the only alleviation being a level of pain medication that renders the patient incoherent, hallucinating, and drooling or frothing at the mouth, then what right does any outside party have in preventing the patient from seeking a more merciful, more humane end to their life? And if the patient requires assistance in achieving that, what right does any outside party have in interfering with the patient's wishes?

Ascertaining the patient's actual wishes, preventing abuse or manipulation, preventing homicide in the guise of assisting with suicide are all legitimate. Requiring human beings to endure undesired degradation, pain or suffering for the sake of someone else's "morals" is not legitimate.

Quote:
Many times the patient is not competent. What should we do in these situations? I disagree with assisting in the suicide of anyone rather than trying to alleviate the source of their suffering.
If the patient isn't competent (this of course has to be decided by some other definition than whether one agrees with the "morality" of the patient's decision), then they lack the legal ability to consent. Having another party "consent" to a patient's "assisted suicide" is fallacious - if the life-terminating decision is made by some other party, it's no longer suicide, and IMO no longer a matter of a question of patient's rights.

However, if a patient specifies beforehand in a living will that if he reaches certain conditions, he will not want further medical treatment, and if he can not or do not desire to bear the pain or other conditions of his illness, he wished to have the assistance of a family member or physician or whoever to end his life, that choice should be respected.

Living wills are still a very poorly evolved concept, because there are a large number of possible situations and conditions that they try to anticipate, and it is quite possible to get into disputes regarding intent. There are also many situations they aren't legally recognized to cover. IMO, the positive obligation is to respect the wishes of the affected individual if those wishes are clearly stated and known while the individual is competent.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.

Last edited by MichaeltheGreat; October 23, 2003 at 17:39.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 16:22   #77
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 11:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
ROFLMAO!

Probably won't happen very many times in your life, Lincoln - you should cherish this moment.
I'm still trying to figure out if it is supposed to be a compliment or what??
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 17:30   #78
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




"Justifications for persecutions of Jews." Could you cite his claim?

Maybe he was getting Auggie mixed up John Crysostotum (sp?) Heck I get them mixed up all the time (well actually i dont, but still )

just thought id check in as the resident "Sensitive Jew"
__________________
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
lord of the mark is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 17:35   #79
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
John Chrysostom.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old October 23, 2003, 18:33   #80
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
I think the critical passage in the piece was this.

"Nationalized health care and government involvement in
medical care promised to improve the public's "quality
of life." Unfortunately, the cost of maintaining
government medical care was a contributing factor to
the growth of the national debt, which reached
astronomical proportions. Double and triple digit
inflation crippled the economy, resulting in the
public demanding that government cut expenses.

This precipitated the 1939 order to cut federal
expenses. The national socialist government decided to
remove "useless" expenses from the budget, which
included the support and medical costs required to
maintain the lives of the retarded, insane, senile,
epileptic, psychiatric patients, handicapped, deaf,
blind, the non-rehabilitatable ill and those who had
been diseased or chronically ill for five years or
more. It was labeled an "act of mercy" to "liberate
them through death," as they were viewed as having an
extremely low "quality of life," as well as being a
tax burden on the public.

The public psyche was conditioned for this, as even
school math problems compared distorted medical costs
incurred by the taxpayer of caring for and
rehabilitating the chronically sick with the cost of
loans to newly married couples for new housing units."

I have a few question for those who may know.

1) When did Germany nationalize health care?
2) Was the 1939 order given before or after the onset of war in September?
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 00:27   #81
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Ben -
Quote:
I disagree with assisting in the suicide of anyone rather than trying to alleviate the source of their suffering.
And if the source cannot be dealt with? I thought you supported control by the individual? That's what assisted suicide is...

Quote:
They already have this. No need for euthanasia.
If I leave a will asking for assistance in ending my life if I become a "vegetable" because being in that condition prevents me from consenting at that point, much less committing suicide, I have neither dignity or control if my wishes are ignored because someone else decided it's "moral" for me to hang around a few days or months.
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 00:53   #82
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
bump, does anyone know the answers to my questions. The reason I ask is that NAZI Germany is the premise. However, I, as others here, do not fully understand how the German people could have gone from accepting euthanasia as a personal option to state liquidation. I know this actually happened, but I always thought it was part of the war and that the NAZIs were censoring the news so that the average German knew nothing about what was going on. However, the article seems to suggest that liquidation began before the war started and was supported by the German people.

Really?
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 12:11   #83
Tripledoc
ACDG The Human Hive
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
1) When did Germany nationalize health care?
2) Was the 1939 order given before or after the onset of war in September?
This is what I found in the book The Greatest Benefit to Mankind - A Medical history of humanity from Antiquity to the Present by Roy Porter, 1997

1) In 1883 Bismarck created a vast health insurance system. This, however, was primarily directed so as to provide benefits for the working-class. The middle class still were to sign up for private heathcare.
In the 1920s the Weimar Republic (1918-33) began to provide needs for particularily women and their children.
So until the rise of the Nazis the implementation of nationalized healthcare was a gradual process.

2)Before the outbreak of war the government had already ordered the sterilization of some 400.000 mentally retarded, sick, epileptics and alcoholics. However the euthanasia programme was only implemented after the outbreak of war. It became routine at mental-institutions to starve the insane to death. Between January 1940 and September 1942 70.723 retarded and insane were killed by the use of poison gas.
Again more of a gradual process. Especially since already in 1908 the first issue of Archiv für Rassenhygiene (Archive for racial hygiene) was published and became an influential mouthpiece for the movement for racial hygiene.

Again I would like to point out that the first cases of euthanasia was actually a result of individual citizens wanting to get rid of their retarded or insane family members. Then of course it became a matter of routine.
This according to the BBC series The Nazis. A Warning from History.

Last edited by Tripledoc; October 24, 2003 at 12:24.
Tripledoc is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 13:33   #84
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Broader essays have done so, to pinpoint this idea of a quality of life. This one has a focus on the comparison between the ethics of Nazi Germany and of those in America today.
So, you deny that this essay uses the comparison to nazi Germany as a rhetorical weapon and blatant fearmongerism?
__________________
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Spiffor is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 13:36   #85
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
On Greta van Susterin's show last night, the topic of the women in Florida whose is on life support came up. Jeff Vigers (sp?), one of Greta's regular legal analysts and former Democrat candidate for governor of Michigan, argued the economics of maintaining 30,000 people on life support with little hope of recovery and at great expense (to the taxpayer).

I personally agree with Vigers. I think we should pull the plug. But if we do this today without the consent of the guardian of the person on life support, it would almost be considered murder. Perhaps we need a revision in the laws where public monies could not be used to maintain people on life support.

Would that be barbaric?
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 14:22   #86
Tripledoc
ACDG The Human Hive
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I personally agree with Vigers. I think we should pull the plug. But if we do this today without the consent of the guardian of the person on life support, it would almost be considered murder. Perhaps we need a revision in the laws where public monies could not be used to maintain people on life support.

Would that be barbaric?
No it would probably be very civilized and democratic, and therefore entirely on what the majority has defined as the good side of things.
However I am wondering why it has all of a sudden become a problem for the American people that they simply can no longer find the means to pay for such luxuries in their healthcare. When money were plentiful, it was of course an easy path to take to provide for the wishes of the medical establishment and the afflicted families and thus be on the side of good. Now when the money are scarce it is of course the good thing to do not to burden the medical establishment or the families , and let us not forget the taxpayers, with providing such luxuries.

Makes me wonder at what price being good comes these days. The price has certanly fallen.
Tripledoc is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 15:29   #87
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
John Chrysostom.
Uh yeah, that guy.
__________________
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
lord of the mark is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 15:33   #88
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
look at spiffors post and Neds (and triple docs) in succession. The comparison with Nazi Germany - which was made to emphasize the slipper slope possibility was "fearmongering". well maybe so. But then we get 2 people arguing for euthanasia NOT on the grounds of compassion, and NOT on the basis of consent, but as state policy, on purely financial grounds.

Now i now the state does not (when spending money on prevention, on traffic safety, etc) hold the value of life to be infinite - but i cant help but thinking we are already well on our way down the slippery slope that Ben points out.
__________________
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
lord of the mark is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 15:35   #89
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
bump, does anyone know the answers to my questions. The reason I ask is that NAZI Germany is the premise. However, I, as others here, do not fully understand how the German people could have gone from accepting euthanasia as a personal option to state liquidation. I know this actually happened, but I always thought it was part of the war and that the NAZIs were censoring the news so that the average German knew nothing about what was going on. However, the article seems to suggest that liquidation began before the war started and was supported by the German people.

Really?
On the contrary, they BECAME aware of it, and they stopped it. Think about that. They stopped it. Daniel Goldhagen, in "Ordinary Germans" elaborates on the implications of that. In particular on what would have happened if they had tried to stop the subsequent genocide against Jews, Roma, Poles.
__________________
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
lord of the mark is offline  
Old October 24, 2003, 16:30   #90
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:03
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
look at spiffors post and Neds (and triple docs) in succession. The comparison with Nazi Germany - which was made to emphasize the slipper slope possibility was "fearmongering". well maybe so. But then we get 2 people arguing for euthanasia NOT on the grounds of compassion, and NOT on the basis of consent, but as state policy, on purely financial grounds.


Now i now the state does not (when spending money on prevention, on traffic safety, etc) hold the value of life to be infinite - but i cant help but thinking we are already well on our way down the slippery slope that Ben points out.
In terms of their posts, I think there's a distinct difference between not providing artificial means of life support indefinitely, and actively terminating life. It's not so much a slippery slope, as it is having to cross an entire valley and go down an entirely new slope.

If you look at life support and look at life extending, but exotic treatment - pirmarily higher end transplants such as liver, heart, and heart-lung, we already make resource based decisions, because we don't have a surplus of resources (donor organs, qualified surgical teams, immunodepressants, etc. and the whole range of specialized follow-on care) compared to the number of patients who could theoretically benefit. This has been the case since these medical technologies have been developed.

Nobody has argued that we should take every conceivable measure to prolong life, regardless of cost considerations or benefit to the patient (i.e. major surgical intervention for minimal life extension).

Artificial or external life support comes in a lot of forms, and the nature and cost varies tremendously, from human caregivers providing part time services to disabled who can't feed themselves, at one end, to Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in a hospice setting or on-going dialysis x times per week in the middle, to full cardiorespiratory support in a hospital critical care setting at the high end.

Some forms of life support are as intrusive and costly as major transplant surgery, but may offer minimum benefit - or great benefit, IF the patient has a chance to recover, but there is ALWAYS a resource and benefit consideration. There are no infinite resources, and we are all mortal - sometimes death claims us sooner than we or others would like, but it claims us nevertheless.

There is a huge difference between trying to balance resources and patient benefit in extreme cases where there is no objective expectation of recovery, and deciding to actively kill people on a mass scale on the grounds of inconvenience to the state or to society as a whole.

Terri Schiavo's case is not a particularly good example for any point of view. According to one statement I've seen, her cerebral cortex is essentially gone, and the void filled with encephalic fluid. If that is in fact the case, and only the cerebellum and lower brain structures are intact and viable, then there will never be any recovery, even though the portions of the brain that control her autonomic functions are intact. If that's the case, what her parents describe as responsive is nothing more than a stimulus-response mechanism, which you can obtain even without a brain, if you can sustain cellular life and electrical impulses to nerves.

In her case also, due to the malpractice suits, there is in theory enough money to sustain her on the type of limited life support she's receiving indefinitely. Should we do that? I don't know, and I don't consider reportage of each side's claims to be adequate to form an opinion, but in her case, there are at least external financial resources available.

If there is a possibility of recovery (and no court who has heard the actual expert testimony and seen the medical evidence has been convinced of this), and there has been no recovery in 13 years, should we conclude that we should keep her body going "well, there still might be even though we have no basis other than hope and random luck for believing that."

Is she in pain, or in fact having sufficient mental function that "pain" is a meaningful concept, beyond the stimulus-response mechanism? It's a complex issue. Her wishes or previous intent are also a complex issue, because we have no primary evidence, only secondary evidence given by an interested party.

IMO, this case is not a good example, or a good basis for developing a consistent policy approach for the state (in terms of ascertaining patient wishes and medically sound practices), or for the medical profession (in terms of medical ethics and patient "benefit.")
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team