Donny Most and Assisted Suicide
Who knows when and if Donny Most will ever do anything cool. I decided to go ahead and post the picture of Donny Most and fulfill all of the blogging goals that I set for myself when I started this blog.
Life is good; I feel complete and can die a happy man.
Now moving on to less important things....
Assisted Suicide
I was pleased to see this decision come down from the Supreme Court. It gives me hope that the Supreme Court is indeed in touch with the general population of the United States and it gives me comfort to know that I may have this option if I am ever terminally ill.
I left a comment at Ranando Report regarding this issue earlier today and I note that someone named Echotig responded. It is an interesting debate. Echotig seems to believe that we should leave the medical profession out of this. However I think this is part of the medical care that I expect from my physician.
I expect my doctor to advise me about the physical condition of my body. Based on that advise, I should be permitted to make a decision about my care or about whether to end my life through. Once I make that decison, I would expect my doctor to assist with the treatment on which I have decided.
I am an attorney. I have clients come to me with issues all of the time. I look at their documents and review their issues and then give them advice on the potential ways to proceed with their issue and the risks associated with each choice. The client then decides which action to take. I don't send them off to draft their own documents; I draft the documents and assist them through to the end of their legal matter.
Why should we expect less than that from our physicians.
As I said in my comments to Ranando's post - if it was a dog, we would have it euthanized and call it humane. I agree with Echotig that death is not dignified no matter how it happens, but I disagree with him regarding the medical profession not being responsible for this. One misstatement made by Echotig is his statement that the medical professional would decide when you die. That is not the way it works. The medical professional would not have the power to decide whether you live or die for you, but once you made that decision, they would and should respect it and assist it so that it is as humane as possible.
Further, Echotig mentioned that God did not promise that we would not suffer and does not owe us that. I find it ridiculous that anyone would make the counter-assumption that God would want us to suffer and I hope that isn't what he is suggesting. God may not owe us freedom from suffering, but my God is not cruel and would not require people to suffer either. We each have freedom of choice and this is the most fundamental choice of all.
posted by FLAMINGO1 at 11:11 PM
37 Comments:
Flamingo i notice that you are an attorney and although i am not usually one to ask for free advice, i need to do so now.
Would you mind telling me how i can rid my roses of pesky aphids? normal insecticde is just not working this summer.
I'm more concerned about Anson Williams...
Aphids are a tough problem. While there is no substitute for the time consuming "pinching" method of killing off aphids, one easy substitute is an easy and non-toxic insecticide.
To make this simple insecticide, mix:
1 c. vegetable oil with
1 tbsp. liquid dishwashing soap.
Add 1 1/2 tsp. of this solution per cup of warm water to a handheld spray bottle.
This should take care of your pesky aphid problem.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance with any pesky insects or touchy gardening issues.
First there are very few professionals in the medical field. Half the time I feel as though I could be the one giving advice. I have told a doctor that once. As I was sitting in the doctors office listening to him babble nonsense, I said, "why don't we switch positions and I can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year." Our discussion concluded with the doctor telling me that I was right about certain conditions where holistic medication would be more necessary than taking a pill. Seriously, some doctors are so fucking singular minded, it makes you wonder how they made it past kindegarden.
Yes, we should be able to choose whether we would like to live or die. I think our society really needs to grow up. Since a little one, I have always found the people who make up our society very unwise. Our contries are still young.
I have explained why I cannot show my naked breasts in blogosphere many many times. Please check notes.
Where as I cannot die unless my secret is exposed:
I must say that God didn't have things like respiratory devices and complex drugs in mind when he created death, henceforth all of the people who wish for euthanasia may feel justified in knowing we created our own suffering, and that if they would have left their lives to God they would already be pushing up daisies. In conclusion I might add that if doctors can keep us alive, then why can't they help us die.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let shine!!
Capt'n you pussy!! Stubbed toe whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
Chuck... I mean Captain Carl, we also have one of those marijuana cards here in Canada. It's called CALM - Canabis as Living Medicine. Seriously.
flamingo i didn't have cooking oil - my home delivery pizza usually comes cooked - so i used petrol instead. i didn't have dishwashing liquid either - i don't tend to wash take-away food containers - so i substituted baking soda. The roses are now dead but so are the aphids.
I can see why you charge the big bucks - you really got straight to the core of the issue and fixed it. if ever you need advice on snelching please do come and see me - there will be no charge for you.
Would you consider putting on a snelching seminar?
Perhaps i could record a video and place it on my blog. who wants to volunteer their bum? i promise it won't hurt...
Take the Captain!!
If snelching is anything like felching I'm sure he will love it!!
What;s the big deal about Danny Most? Who the fuck is he? Don't tear into me... it's just a generation gap I'm sure.
As far as assisted suicide, I pretty much agree with what you said. After a couple Milwaukee's Bests, I'm not in the mood to discuss ethics. MAybe later.
You are an attorney and you don't see the future of all this? Oh wait! You will be getting paid by those poor afflicted people suing the "medical proessionals" after its gone wrong.
There was no misstatement when I said that doctors would get to decide when you die.
Hello...Terri? anybody else that is still alive but can't speak their wishes? I just forgot to add that Judgges and Lawyers can too.
I take offense at the words "humane as possible." Starving a woman to death is not humane.
And about God and suffering. Read through the bible. He allows suffering, he doesn't require it. Our free will brings about the things we have to suffer through everyday. Its called growing up. Have you ever met an adult that was so sheltered and never had to suffer a day in their life? They are strange indeed.
Crall, Donny Most played the beloved character Ralph Malph on Happy Days. He is special because...
nah, he isn't special this was just a goof.
Echotig - the doctors did not make the decision regarding Terri Schiavo - her husband made that decision and the autopsy showed it was the right decision.
I had a dog that was dying of liver failure and there was nothing we could do to save him. I personally took him in and held him while the vet put him to sleep. I cried like a baby but it was the right thing to because he was suffering terribly. If Terri Schiavo had been my wife, I would have wanted to give her the same release from her painful existence.
I agree with you that it was an inhumane way to let Terri Schiavo die. It is a shame that they could not have given her a simple lethal injection that would have been quick and painless like we would do for a dog or a cat. I am certain that no one is proposing that we starve dying people to death. But nice attempt to make an emotional appeal on that point.
I will not get paid one nickel for this unless they decide to take out a loan on commercial real estate to finance their assisted suicide. Furthermore a personal attack against me is considered a logical fallicy - it is a poor way to argue your point to claim that since I am getting paid my logic is flawed.
I could be getting paid yet have good logic. I could not be getting paid and have poor logic. The two really have nothing to do with one another. However, I assure you I am not making money on this. I just think it is the right decision.
Don't try to claim that this is a slippery slope and that we will next be killing people with head colds. This decision isn't taken lightly by anyone and that argument is just plain ridiculous.
I don't have to read through the Bible for guidance on what is right and what is wrong. I am a rational thinking human being and can analyze issues on my own and come to my own moral conclusions.
If you choose to use the Bible to guide you in your decisions - so be it. All I ask is that you have the good sense to realize that not everyone is of your faith and not everyone should be required to follow your system of beliefs. The Bible does not dictate my life - it is not law. The laws of the United States government do govern me and I feel very strongly that the United States government should not interefere with decisions concerning my healthcare or my right to terminate my life with less pain to avoid a long and drawn out painful death.
It is one of the most fundamental freedoms that we as humans and as citizens of this democracy should have; the right to determine when we have suffered enough.
I stand by my statements in the original post.
No way am I going to google "snelching" Fool me once. . .
Echotig,
Not only is Pinky a rational thinking human being and can analyze issues on his own and come to his own moral conclusions, he is an intelligent and sexy man evidenced by his big feet. And he should be paid for simply existing.
Next time you type your thoughts, try not to detach the sticky pages from the bible at the same time, if you know what I mean.
I'm sorry about your dog, Pinky.
Kagemusha, googling snelching or felching would make your head explode. Best for you to stick to f-bombs and light porn for now.
You gotta walk before you run, brotha!
Kagemusha - I am curious. Where does the Mormon Church stand on this issue?
You hit me where I live with this one. My mother had COPD. She went into the hospital the day after Christmas and coded twice. They put her on life support. (no living will).
Her doctor could not bring himself to tell her that she was dying and would only remain alive on that machine. She ended up in a room full of human vegetables. We came in one day and my mother had been tearing her hair out.
I fought and fought with them over this. My mom by then only had brief moments when she was able to think clearly.
Finally I told her myself that the machines were not a temporary thing and she would die without them. Next time they came in and she was lucid she asked for the machine to be removed. I took her home to my house and that's where she finally died.
The indignities she suffered were painful to watch. She was a very proud, independant woman all her life.
And I agree with you Flamingo. The God I know is a merciful one and does not punish us for loving someone enough to save them from misery.
While I don’t claim to be an expert on euthanasia policy, it seems to me that each side of the debate makes arguments derived from a single core ideal (I will admit at the outset this summation is broadly worded, so don’t quibble with whether this precisely “hits the nail on the head” as far as your point of view).
Those in favor of euthanasia feel that because we are free individuals we have the right to decide for ourselves whether or when to terminate someone’s life (either our own life or the life of someone we have responsibility for who can no longer speak for themselves—i.e. Terri Schavio (sp?)). Whereas those opposed to euthanasia feel it is God’s task to determine whether someone lives or dies and we are in no position, nor should we attempt, to play God.
It will surely be no surprise to Flamingo that I am part of the latter camp, but perhaps not for the reason he might think. I shudder to think of the cost to society once any group of human beings is considered unworthy (either in their own opinion or because someone else deems it so) to continue living. Continuing down that slippery slope, what is to stop society from determining that someone is too handicapped (and this point strikes home particularly hard for me) and thus is unworthy of life? To continue the analogy towards the absurd, what about someone who is deaf? What about someone who is not smart enough?
The response to my fears, when I have expressed them to others, is that I am being silly. That would never happen. However, I recently read an article that explained that pediatricians in Los Angeles are seeing far fewer Downs Syndrome children. The article then went on to note that with improved testing, a diagnosis of Downs Syndrome is routinely made in utero. Then the penny dropped: the article then went on to explain that 80 to 90% of all pregnancies where Downs Syndrome was suspected were terminated. Have we as a society already taken the first step down the highway of my worst nightmare? Have we already decided that some people are “too handicapped” to be worthy of life?
I am the father of a severely mentally handicapped son. He is nearly eleven years old but has the physical and mental abilities of a two month old. The most accurate description I can think of is that he is a 75 pound infant. He cannot volitionally use his arms or legs. He cannot feed himself (he is fed through a G-tube). He still wears diapers. I pick him up out of his bed each morning and place him on the floor in the living room so he can be around the rest of the family. I tuck him back in bed each night. We have spent numerous holidays in the hospital with him. Because of his handicap he has never ridden Space Mountain notwithstanding numerous family trips to Disneyland. From the world’s perspective he has little to live for. But I think he is priceless—and so do some others.
When he was in kindergarten the sociology students at the nearby university were studying the development of friendships among young children. They asked each child to list their five best friends in the class (the class had about 30 kids). Interestingly, our son’s name appeared on each and every child’s list, notwithstanding the fact that he had never once spoken with any of them, laughed with any of them, slid down the slide or done any other type of “kid activity.” When the students questioned the kids as to why our son was on his list they got responses like “he likes it when I read to him” or “he lets me help him color” or “he lets me push him in his wheelchair.”
It seems to me that these kids learned to love my son, and believed my son loved them because they rendered compassionate service to him. Perhaps that is why my wife and I love our son so much as well—we serve him constantly. Maybe to a large part that is why parents develop such strong love for their children—we serve them.
When we decide to end our own life, we are taking away from other people’s ability to serve us and love us. I think that everyone, handicapped, terminally ill or otherwise, is of worth not only to themselves, but to the rest of us as well. I oppose euthanasia because of the hole it tears in the hearts of those left behind.
Sorry for the long post, but that is my $.02.
P.S. Sorry Flamingo, forgot to answer your question. As for the Mormon Church, the policy is that we should not end life on a whim or simply because someone is terminally ill.
However, if there has been an accident or medical condition such that the person is only alive because of a modern machinery (i.e. persistent vegetative state or similar condition), the decision whether to withhold life sustaining treatment is left entirely up to the family. The Church encourages much prayer on the part of the family to know our Father in Heaven’s will, but the Church takes no position as to whether to extend or withhold “life support” when competent medical opinion indicates that the person will never awaken.
echotig. You are wayyyy out of line.
I might also point out, much to your disapproval, I'm sure.... that the Bible is a matter of interpretation. Lots of us read it. I doubt the fact that you have gives you any greater insight to God's thinking than the rest of us.
Each person must do what they believe is right in their own hearts. To allow someone who has no chance at all of living a normal, pain-free life to lay there on a machine and suffer needlessly can not, in my opinion, be right.
Crabcake and mingo,
i too have lived this - twice. neither was an 'assisted' ending. one was my brother in law, 46 - cancer. when he died, he hadn't eaten in over a week. no life support. hospice care only. i guess one could say he starved to death.
the other, my grandmother. she died at 90 after living a very FULL life. she too had not eaten anything in many many days when she passed. did she starve also?
my brother wanted to put in a feeding tube and an iv for fluids for her. i remember explaining to him that dying is part of living. it is natural and inevitable.
if i could have done something to have given either of these people a greater amount of dignity and less discomfort and pain, i would have.
until you've walked a mile...
I am very pleased with your response. I know the facts of your situation and appreciate not only your response on the position of the Church but also your response on a personal level.
I don't think my position on this issue contradicts yours to a great deal. You have personally listened to the medical professionals and made an educated choice about your son.
I would like the right to make that choice for myself or my loved ones, too, but I also want the right to elect the other option if I deem it is necessary.
I also appreciate your point regarding permitting your loved ones to serve you. I was there when my grandfather had brain and spinal cancer. My family served him until the end and we loved him tremendously. But if I would have had the option to end his pain two weeks sooner, I think I would have.
I say "I think" I would have because you cannot be sure until you are standing there with that choice to make.
Flamingo, I would agree that we can never know how we would feel/act until we are in the situation. (As an aside, I have had many people say "Oh, I could never do that" in conjunction with us caring for our son. My response has always been, "Sure you could". It is fundamentally different when you are faced with this situation in real life, rather than as part of a hypothetical construct).
Back on topic, I took it from your original post that when you would hypothetically make the determination to end your own life, you were of sound mind (even if your body was failing). Again I must call on a personal experience which tends to shape my thinking.
When my grandmother was near the end of her life I was given the task of sitting with her for a night (I say "task" because that is how I viewed it when I was a 16-year-old PUNK). I was stymied for a conversation topic. Finally I stammered something like "Should we pray so you can repent and be reconciled to God." Her response was "I haven't waited until the end. I have been repenting along the way." Her response had a profound effect on me then and does so to this day.
I think the same holds true for each of us. Each of us may have something to contribute to our immediately family, if not a wider circle, right up until the end. Perhaps your courage in facing end of life will give someone you love the courage to endure the hard things in life. Perhaps you will drop some great pearl of wisdom (all evidence to date to the contrary) near the end of your life. It just seems to me that we all have something to offer, no matter what state we may be in.
Sorry, forgot to respond to one point. You mentioned that we had "listened to the medical professionals" and have made an educated choice with respect to our son. Actually we did just the opposite.
I can still recall as if it was yesterday the advice we received. After telling us our son diagnosis and his prognosis for life, we were advised that we should let him die (I kid you not) because he would have no "quality of life." We rejected that advice.
When I look back over the past eleven years and see all the wonderful memories (and yes even some of the painful ones) I am so grateful we did NOT follow our doctor's advice.
You may have quoted me accurately, but misunderstood. Just because you have consulted medical professionals NEVER means that you have to take their advice. They are there to give you the options. Ultimately we are each responsible for making the decision when the decision is presented to us.
You would not have had those 11 years if the legislation had been the other way around.
The point I have been inartfully attempting to make is that the U.S. Government should not take away our right to make the choice.
Your story about your grandmother was moving, but my guess is that she didn't wait to drop those pearls until she was dying - you just didn't have enough sense to pick them up until then.
LOL (about the me not having enough sense to pick up the pearls. It is so true I have to laugh. Either that or shake my head in bewildered disbelief that I was so thick back then).
I understand your point about not wanting the government to take away the choice to terminate life. I guess my response is that I find it distressing, and a little bit sad, that someone would ever get to the point that they believe life is not worth living.
Our arguments come from different directions. We are like two ships passing in the night. Send up a flare buddy so I can get on board the SS Flamingo. Except that PDD has already bbooked the entire Promenade Deck, which was where all the cool people stayed on the Love Boat (Charo, Mr. Kotter, Scott Baio).
You just made a solid point without even trying. I always operate under the assumption that the people making these choices are intelligent, well equipped people (like you and me LOL).
Now put yourself at Wal-Mart with the average Wal-Mart shopper. I wouldn't trust half of those people to make an intelligent choice about whether to buy socks, much less whether to opt for an assisted suicide.
But I still want the option, dammit.
Now give me an f-bomb! You can repent later.
WOW, What a great exchange or comments and a great posy.
Thanks for the plugs Flam.
Give your daughter a $100.00 and tell het it's from me, Ranando.
Did you not read my post above?!? I cannot willy-nilly drop the f-bomb because I have to follow my grandmother's advice and "repent as I go." When I drop the f-bomb I initiate a causality loop which goes something like:
(1) "F-bomb."
(2) Realization I need to repent.
(3) "F-bomb. I need to repent"
(4) Realization I need to repent. Go to step 3.
Guilt is a vicious cycle.
Johnny-come-lately here with a couple of thoughts:
1. When people are making a choice about their own life, whether the person making the choice is intelligent and whether the choice itself is intelligent is completely irrelevant. Freedom to choose is freedom to make a bad choice. Necessarily. So the average-Wal-Mart-sock-shopper example is offensive to freedom and I think inadvertently contrary to the other arguments you were making. Your thoughts?
,./yggfggfgfggtfgfg,./gghyygghgyyuy7y7ycfghhhssyygsytdtydgyxgsyxtzgztxygtsatffztqtafgffhxbgxfvghxgvdhbcccvgcfcfggcgfcghhcxyxgdfbxxbfvbcjg
xcxrehgfasvcsdg,./ hhhgggghggghihwdfrgcytd uhjscgcfcfghghvgvgfvtfxgfxgzxgzzdxdre
the paragraphs above were written by my daughter. she is 3.
vxfxfgfgeftgeyte6txx6 eeg
bhyrtyrttgdsuh
bbhcghghuduiuy
hbhjhxuygxiuuhxygh gggggguttu
uujjfk,foiuherjklpiufyu3ioguuipgip[jhjhksyuhUuiuu jsjjsuuytr
so were those. see how she put some spaces in that second paragraph? we are learning about how words are separated by spaces. Pretty exciting!
2. Surprise to both of the people who have ever read my blog, but Gary North has written this article
about Terry Schiavo that is very much worth reading. This is not entirely on topic, but I noticed that fellow called Echotig mention Ms. Schiavo, and he appears to have significantly misunderstand the implications of that stuation.
The gist of Gary North's article is that he is predicting that people who are relying on Medicare or Medicaid to finance their health care needs are not going to be free to make their own decisions about their health care. The government is going to make decisions for them by deciding which procedures it will pay for and which procedures it will not pay for. This becomes a serious problem when the underfunding of those socialist programs becomes un-ignorably evident. Here comes some cutting and pasting to try to summarize:
******
To say that Terri Schiavo has a right to life is to say that someone else has a legal obligation to pay to keep her alive.
******
******
The pro-Schiavo forces are looking for the tooth-fairy unless they face the implications of what they are saying, namely, that those who maintain life must present the bills for life to someone. Who is to collect payment? Who is to make payment? Who is to enforce payment? Until these issues are faced squarely and publicly, the Schiavo case is just one more emotion-laden opportunity to raise funds by non-profit ministries through posturing.
The anti-Schiavo forces are in the process of publicly abandoning tooth-fairy economics. The tooth fairy is always the state for these people, and she has a pair of pliers. They are beginning to see what the tooth fairy has been doing with those pliers since FDR's presidency, and they have begun to pay more attention to their teeth.
******
I'll add my own $.02 in here to further tip my hand regarding the upcoming Open Letter to Dan Crall I'll be publishing on my own blog here in the next little while:
Government-funded health care is an immoral redistribution of wealth. Government-funded health care requires taxpayers to subsidize patients.
Getting back to the topic at hand, and revisiting Gary North's column again for a second - taxpayers who promote/encourage/support government-funded health care had better be aware that he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the government pays the doctors (piper), the government will call the tune (decide which treatments to provide and which to withhold).
Garrett, I whole-heartedly agree with your point #1. I was kidding about the Wal-Mart shopper exception.
I am off to read the article by Gary North.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
I have retyped a response to the Gary North article twice and this is my third and final attempt. The server keeps dumping me out and it is pissing me off.
So this is going to be quick. The state did not order her feeding tube removed - her husband did.
However, I think the fear of the state mandating health care and the right to life is a valid concern.
In the Schiavo case that is not what happened. The state merely enforced the wishes and commands of her husband - her legal representative in this instance.
What should have happened if her parents (or some other person with some reasonable standing in the matter) had been willing to take on the obligation to pay in order to keep her alive?
In other words, if someone else was willing to pay, should they have been allowed to keep her alive, or should agents of the state be allowed to prohibit them from doing so?
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you!
Tamiflu buy u.s cvs 30 discount sears replacement water filters
Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. Spoon sports tuned prelude Mobile phone tools 220 Gmc canyon regular cab mp3 player Plastic surgeon arkansas Altria and conferencing adipex Sweet hot swimsuits Cheap flights poland south africa Xl wellbutrin
Post a Comment
<< Home