Wikipedia promotes cruel, agonizing, inhumane method of "euthanasia" (annexed), which, in one out of five cases in the Netherlands, is actually MURDER Options

[Anna]

Wikipedia claims that "Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_illn...n_and_hydration

In fact, dehydration is a very cruel, agonizing, inhumane way to murder someone. According to Dr. David Stevens, who unlike some alleged "experts" has actually seen people die this way:
"Is dying of thirst and dehydration a painless death as some experts have asserted? Most so-called experts have never seen someone die in this manner. Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.

As dehydration begins, there is extreme thirst, dry mouth and thick saliva," Dr. Stevens explained. "The patient becomes dizzy, faint and unable to stand or sit; has severe cramping in the arms and legs as the sodium and potassium concentrations in the body go up as fluids go down. In misery, the patient tries to cry but there are no tears. The patient experiences severe abdominal cramps, nausea and dry-heaving as the stomach and intestines dry out.

By now the skin and lips are cracking and the tongue is swollen," Dr. Stevens continued. "The nose may bleed as the mucous membranes dry out and break down. The skin loses elasticity, thins and wrinkles. The hands and feet become cold as the remaining fluids in the circulatory system are shunted to the vital organs in an attempt to stay alive. The person stops urinating and has severe headaches as their brain shrinks from lack of fluids. The patient becomes anxious and gets progressively more lethargic.

Some patients have hallucinations and seizures as their body chemistry becomes even more imbalanced. This proceeds to coma before death occurs. The final event as the blood pressure becomes almost undetectable is a major heart arrhythmia that stops the heart from pumping.

Contrary to those that try to paint a picture of a gentle process, death by dehydration is a cruel, inhumane and often agonizing death."
http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/abouteut...of-euthanasia1/

Starvation is also a very painful way to go.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/l...05/aug/05081606

A man named Burke sought guarantee from the United Kingdom courts that he would not be murdered in this fashion, but was denied by a cruel, inhumane judge:
http://www.bcptl.org/euthanasia.htm#Burke2

In fact, "involuntary euthanasia" (READ: MURDER) is surprisingly common. In Holland, one in five cases of "euthanasia" occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and it is not unheard of in other countries, like the United Kingdom and Canada.
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
http://elderadvocates.ca/exploring-physici...sisted-suicide/

In one case in Canada, a court held that any Substitute Decision Maker who refused to consent to this cruel method of MURDER was incompetent to make decisions for the patient, who was a pastor.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2574608/posts

[Milton Roe]

Wikipedia claims that "Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_illn...n_and_hydration

In fact, dehydration is a very cruel, agonizing, inhumane way to murder someone. According to Dr. David Stevens, who unlike some alleged "experts" has actually seen people die this way:
"Is dying of thirst and dehydration a painless death as some experts have asserted? Most so-called experts have never seen someone die in this manner. Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.

The two situations are completely different, of course.

The key words in Wikipedia are "within the context of palliative care." In such cases the mouth and other mucus membranes are kept from drying out, by administering enough water to stop that. This also keeps the tongue from swelling.

In palliative care, the patient who wants to drink is never kept from drinking (and eating) all they wish to! So where does the dehydration come from? From patients who do not want to drink, cannot drink due to some obstructive throat tumor or gastrointestinal tumor, or who are unconscious. These are merely NOT put on intravenous hydration. Discomfort for other reasons, as well as cramping, is treated with enough morphine to stop it. Occassionally patients who seem to having some discomfort from dehydration itself, are given some subcutaneous fluid. This is not enough to keep the kidneys functioning, but may be enough to keep some other symptoms, such as skin turgor loss, from happening.

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws. However, anybody who wants to fulmanate about hospice dehydration had better have had some experience seeing it. Experience with death by thirst of normal children in Africa does not count. What idiocy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Sololol]

The source looks policy compliant. Why not find a well-sourced article supporting your claims and add in an opposing view?

[Anna]

Wikipedia claims that "Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_illn...n_and_hydration

In fact, dehydration is a very cruel, agonizing, inhumane way to murder someone. According to Dr. David Stevens, who unlike some alleged "experts" has actually seen people die this way:
"Is dying of thirst and dehydration a painless death as some experts have asserted? Most so-called experts have never seen someone die in this manner. Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.

The two situations are completely different, of course.

The key words in Wikipedia are "within the context of palliative care." In such cases the mouth and other mucus membranes are kept from drying out, by administering enough water to stop that. This also keeps the tongue from swelling.

That would hardly prevent the most serious symptoms. It is impossible to dehydrate someone to death without creating a variety of slow painful changes in their body chemistry.

According to Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, dehydration and starvation is likely to create some or all of the following before death:
"* The mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material.
* The lips would become parched and cracked.
* The tongue would swell, and might crack.
* The eyes would recede back into their orbits and the cheeks would become hollow.
* The lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed.
* The skin would hang loose on the body and become dry and scaly.
* The urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder.
* The lining of the stomach would dry out and the sufferer would experience dry heaves and vomiting.
* The body temperature would become very high.
* The brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions.
* The respiratory tract would dry out, and the thick secretions that would
result could plug the lungs and cause death.
* At some point within five days to three weeks the major organs, including the lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and the patient would die."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/l...05/mar/05032308

Even if it did, that's like saying "Drowning may be less painful when drunk." It's probably true, but that doesn't make it any less painful for non-drunks, nor is it any guarantee that drunks will not experience some degree of pain, fear, and panic while drowning.

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

In palliative care, the patient who wants to drink is never kept from drinking all they wish! So where does the dehydration come from? From patients who do not want to drink or who are unconscious. These are merely NOT put on intravenous hydration. Discomfort for other reasons, as well as cramping, is treated with enough morphine to stop it. Occassionally patients who seem to having some discomfort from dehydration itself, are given some subcutaneous fluid. This is not enough to keep the kidneys functioning, but may be enough to keep some other symptoms, such as skin turgor loss, from happening.

If you had gone through my links, you would have realized another possibility, even if it had not been readily apparent to you: a conscious patient, fully able to feel pain, who is fully paralyzed. Obviously, a patient experiencing total or nearly total paralysis is incapable of grabbing a cup of water and drinking it, and requires help in staying hydrated. And where in the name of heaven and earth did you get the idea that kidney failure wasn't painful?

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws. However, anybody who wants to fulmanate about hospice dehydration had better have had some experience seeing it. Experience with death by thirst of normal children in Africa does not count. What idiocy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I can't get over how sloppy you are.

A man in the U.K. goes to court, asking for a guarantee that he will not be murdered by dehydration, is refused by a murderous, cruel, inhumane judge, and you don't see a problem? One in five "euthanasias" in the Netherlands occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and you don't see a problem? If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

Terri Shiavo certainly didn't die a painless death when she was cruelly dehydrated and starved to death.
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/03/31/bio-3079/

Newsflash: One of the very people who advocated euthanasia and death by dehydration and starvation, Dr. Helga Kuhse, did so only because, "If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care - especially the removal of food and fluids - they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interest, they will accept the lethal injection."

[Anna]

The source looks policy compliant. Why not find a well-sourced article supporting your claims and add in an opposing view?

Policy? What policy? More to the point, whose policy?

I don't have the time or energy to fight with them on their own turf. From what I've read in the news, it takes quite a bit of time an energy. Nevertheless, putting such horribly wrong information about such a serious matter is unethical for a website to be reporting to be an encyclopedia. Let the biased pro-murder ideology stay in the biased pro-murder so-called "medical" journal.

To give you a quote from that "source": "Perhaps all patients with essentially normal mental status who are aware that they are dying engage in some degree of suicidal ideation."

I can guarantee you, from going out and the world and actually talking to people, that ain't true. A lot of people refuse suicide because of strong religious beliefs, others because of their strong lust for life. Many simply have things they want to do with their lives they haven't done yet.

[EricBarbour]

Nevertheless, putting such horribly wrong information about such a serious matter is unethical for a website to be reporting to be an encyclopedia. Let the biased pro-murder ideology stay in the biased pro-murder so-called "medical" journal.

Welcome to Wikipedia. BTW, I usually call it an "encyclopedia". For good reasons.

In general, I suspect most people would agree with you. However, Wikipedia isn't run by "most people", it's run by madmen.

[Anna]

Nevertheless, putting such horribly wrong information about such a serious matter is unethical for a website to be reporting to be an encyclopedia. Let the biased pro-murder ideology stay in the biased pro-murder so-called "medical" journal.

Welcome to Wikipedia. BTW, I usually call it an "encyclopedia". For good reasons.

In general, I suspect most people would agree with you. However, Wikipedia isn't run by "most people", it's run by madmen.

Yes, "encyclopedia". Thank you! :-)

[Milton Roe]

That would hardly prevent the most serious symptoms. It is impossible to dehydrate someone to death without creating a variety of slow painful changes in their body chemistry.

Well, you're wrong. I've seen it many times, and you obviously have no experience yourself. But ignorance can be cured. I would suggest you visit your local hospice, and if you're nice, they'll probably allow you to visit some of their patients. There's no substitute in this life for seeing for yourself.

According to Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, dehydration and starvation is likely to create some or all of the following before death:
[blah]

You know, this guy is a judge, not a doctor, nurse or family member of a dying patient. He can visit the local hospice program also, but apparently chose not to.

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

Sure, but that's what we have advanced directives are for. Have you filled yours out? If you want to be on all possible life support, including IV fluids, I'm sure somebody will be willing to give them to you. Terri Schiavo had not filled out her paperwork. I have. If I'm ever in a vegetative state or even badly brain damaged (no social interaction), they're going to dehydrate me and fill me up with the best narcotics. What happens to you, is your problem.

If you had gone through my links, you would have realized another possibility, even if it had not been readily apparent to you: a conscious patient, fully able to feel pain, who is fully paralyzed. Obviously, a patient experiencing total or nearly total paralysis is incapable of grabbing a cup of water and drinking it, and requires help in staying hydrated.

It also requires help to breathe if you're totally paralyzed to the point that you can't communicate even by blinking. In that state, my instructions are to give me a big shot of morphine and take me off the ventilator. I'll be dead in 20 minutes which is fine with me, since being fully "locked in" with people who won't let you die, is far scarier than the alternative. Dehydration the least of my worries, and suffocation is fast. And with morphine, no bother. Indeed, that's how morphine kills: you don't need to breathe; you don't want to breathe.

And where in the name of heaven and earth did you get the idea that kidney failure wasn't painful?

From seeing a great variety of people who had it! Where did you get the idea that it was? You know, I're sure you have a local chronic renal dialysis center near you that you can probably visit also. Go educate yourself. Stop writing stuff on web you know nothing about. Use your telephone directory.

A man in the U.K. goes to court, asking for a guarantee that he will not be murdered by dehydration, is refused by a murderous, cruel, inhumane judge, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with the NHS! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) However, in the US, it's not a problem. Fill out your "advanced directive" forms properly, and that's your guarantee. Make sure the person(s) you appoint as your proxys in your durable power of attorney for healthcare, are people who know your feelings, and that you trust. Legally in the US they are bound by your wishes as set out in the advanced directive, but it never hurts to make sure.

http://www.pogoe.org/ebm/resources/nursesn...e_Decision.html

One in five "euthanasias" in the Netherlands occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with Dutch paperwork. However, one of the classic arguments for euthanasia, is that (in the absense of knowing the person's wishes) ethically you would do for an "in-testate" person what you'd do for a suffering animal, would you not? So where does that leave you?

If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

I might see a problem, but you forgot to provide a link.

Terri Shiavo certainly didn't die a painless death when she was cruelly dehydrated and starved to death.

We don't know the answer to that, but it's likely she felt no pain, as she was lacking half her brain. She was not conscious, and in general it takes being conscious to feel pain.

When I was in high school we did a demonstration that you can't do any more in high school. We took a frog and decapitated it, then hung the body up from a hook in the neck. For some minuites it was possible to see a remarkable phenomenon something like this:



A headless frog can do better than this, though. If you put a paper with vinegar on the skin, the headless frog can reach over with the opposite leg, and very delicately and very specifically flick the paper off. No matter when you put it on the skin of the back or front, one leg reaches over from the opposite side, and removes it. A frog can reach any part it its skin with a toe, and does. That's all in the spinal cord (as you can prove by pithing the spinal cord and seeing that the ability goes away). No brain is required, however. There is no pain.

So don't be fooled by what looks like consiousness, but is merely reflex. Even humans have some of this. Not as much as frogs, but enough to fool people seeing what they want to see. I include the frog because if THIS frog had its head, you'd be saying "Of course the frog feels that!" It's obvious by inspection, right?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

[Anna]

That would hardly prevent the most serious symptoms. It is impossible to dehydrate someone to death without creating a variety of slow painful changes in their body chemistry.

Well, you're wrong. I've seen it many times, and you obviously have no experience yourself. But ignorance can be cured. I would suggest you visit your local hospice, and if you're nice, they'll probably allow you to visit some of their patients. There's no substitute in this life for seeing for yourself.

Pain is often not apparent on the face. I have know many people who were in a lot of pain, including a few cancer patients, and, in many cases, you couldn't tell just from looking at their face... although sometimes there was something in the eyes. I've been in a lot of pain myself, and people didn't have any idea from looking at my face. Hell, probably saved my life once when I played possum and let some madman think he had beaten me to unconsciousness.

I can do better. I've lived in a desert. I've been dehydrated. I've been hungry. Not enough to die, but enough to know that it isn't fun.

And then there's the horror stories you hear of people who have drunk seawater, which apparently results in a sort of accelerated dehydration.

According to Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, dehydration and starvation is likely to create some or all of the following before death:
[blah]

You know, this guy is a judge, not a doctor, nurse or family member of a dying patient. He can visit the local hospice program also, but apparently chose not to.

No, he did what a judge does: he listed to people on both sides.

And anyway, his opinion is hardly the only one I've presented.

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

Sure, but that's what we have advanced directives are for. Have you filled yours out? If you want to be on all possible life support, including IV fluids, I'm sure somebody will be willing to give them to you. Terri Schiavo had not filled out her paperwork. I have. If I'm ever in a vegetative state or even badly brain damaged (no social interaction), they're going to dehydrate me and fill me up with the best narcotics. What happens to you, is your problem.

What I've seen of hospital personnel is they don't read advance directives, or even medical bracelets. Hell, even if the patient is awake and shouting (well, as loudly as one can when one is having trouble breathing) that the patient wants to live and breathe, they continue to hold the patient hostage against the will of both the patient and any representative of the patient. Thus subjecting the patient to painful lungache and oxygen deprivation headache. One would hope that the hospital is question is an exception rather than the rule... but given the reluctance of the police and the AMA to do anything to punish the hospital in question, I have my doubts. The police seemed to be under the impression that the hospital was not within their jurisdiction, sort of like an embassy.

That is what I'm complaining about. Doctors taking drastic measures like euthanasia without even asking the patient, and in many cases, against the explicit wishes of the patient and/or his family. People who genuinely want to die painful deaths are a different matter. The statistics in the Netherlands are particularly horrible.

Advance directives won't do you any good if the doctors are dead set on doing what they think is best, your wishes be d***ed. Although, the advance directive might help your family sue for wrongful death, so they are good to fill out for that, so you can at least dream of being avenged.

If you had gone through my links, you would have realized another possibility, even if it had not been readily apparent to you: a conscious patient, fully able to feel pain, who is fully paralyzed. Obviously, a patient experiencing total or nearly total paralysis is incapable of grabbing a cup of water and drinking it, and requires help in staying hydrated.

It also requires help to breathe if you're totally paralyzed to the point that you can't communicate even by blinking. In that state, my instructions are to give me a big shot of morphine and take me off the ventilator. I'll be dead in 20 minutes which is fine with me, since being fully "locked in" with people who won't let you die, is far scarier than the alternative. Dehydration the least of my worries, and suffocation is fast. And with morphine, no bother. Indeed, that's how morphine kills: you don't need to breathe; you don't want to breathe.

Paralysis is more complicated than that. 100% paralysis of both voluntary movement would probably stop the lungs and heart, killing the patient, but there are different types and different degrees. It's possible for someone to me paralyzed enough that they can't lift a glass of water and bring it to their lips, but not so paralyzed that they can't breathe. A person who is incapable of voluntary muscle control can even go into convulsions. Sometimes, paralysis is temporary. Sometimes you get better and live to tell about it. Also, even if you can blink, good luck getting someone who is considerate and smart enough to a) think of doing this and b) ask reasonable questions you can give yes-or-no answers to without thinking to yourself "Well, yes, except... how do I tell him the except just by blinking! Why won't he ask more specific questions rather than these vague ambiguous things?! Maybe if I just stare he'll ask better questions...."

In that case, I was probably wrong about morphine being painless. Suffocation may be fast, if it is abrupt enough, but it doesn't feel fast when you are panicking that much. If breathing were abruptly terminated, it might take five minutes for you to go unconscious, but it doesn't feel like five minutes. In my experience, if feels more like an hour. Of course, even if it really was an hour rather than just a particularly slow five minutes, that's still a lot faster than the dehydration patients die. It's possible the morphine would knock you unconscious first. And suffocation isn't always fast. Consider carbon monoxide poisoning.

And where in the name of heaven and earth did you get the idea that kidney failure wasn't painful?

From seeing a great variety of people who had it! Where did you get the idea that it was? You know, I're sure you have a local chronic renal dialysis center near you that you can probably visit also. Go educate yourself. Stop writing stuff on web you know nothing about. Use your telephone directory.

On the contrary, it's hard to find information on the internet to explain what I've seen. Not everyone gets dialysis, and toxins building up in your body can be rather painful.

A man in the U.K. goes to court, asking for a guarantee that he will not be murdered by dehydration, is refused by a murderous, cruel, inhumane judge, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with the NHS! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) However, in the US, it's not a problem. Fill out your "advanced directive" forms properly, and that's your guarantee. Make sure the person(s) you appoint as your proxys in your durable power of attorney for healthcare, are people who know your feelings, and that you trust. Legally in the US they are bound by your wishes as set out in the advanced directive, but it never hurts to make sure.

This U.S. woman was wide awake and capable of telling her doctors that she did not want to remain in the hospital, and did so, yet they held her hostage anyone. Legally, I think all they can do is offer her a form stating that she is leaving against medical advice, but what good are laws if no one enforces them? Religious fanatics generally make bad doctors. So do anti-religious fanatics, for that matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appe...e_b_434497.html

One in five "euthanasias" in the Netherlands occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with Dutch paperwork. However, one of the classic arguments for euthanasia, is that (in the absense of knowing the person's wishes) ethically you would do for an "in-testate" person what you'd do for a suffering animal, would you not? So where does that leave you?

In the case of the Netherlands, with loads of people afraid to go to the hospital for fear of being killed, and filling out paperwork stating that they do not want to be helped to die.

If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

I might see a problem, but you forgot to provide a link.

The last link in my first post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2574608/posts

The guy was a priest -- not the sort of person likely to consent to such a thing.

Terri Shiavo certainly didn't die a painless death when she was cruelly dehydrated and starved to death.

We don't know the answer to that, but it's likely she felt no pain, as she was lacking half her brain. She was not conscious, and in general it takes being conscious to feel pain.

When I was in high school we did a demonstration that you can't do any more in high school. We took a frog and decapitated it, then hung the body up from a hook in the neck. For some minuites it was possible to see a remarkable phenomenon something like this:



A headless frog can do better than this, though. If you put a paper with vinegar on the skin, the headless frog can reach over with the opposite leg, and very delicately and very specifically flick the paper off. No matter when you put it on the skin of the back or front, one leg reaches over from the opposite side, and removes it. A frog can reach any part it its skin with a toe, and does. That's all in the spinal cord (as you can prove by pithing the spinal cord and seeing that the ability goes away). No brain is required, however. There is no pain.

So don't be fooled by what looks like consiousness, but is merely reflex. Even humans have some of this. Not as much as frogs, but enough to fool people seeing what they want to see. I include the frog because if THIS frog had its head, you'd be saying "Of course the frog feels that!" It's obvious by inspection, right?

Youtube doesn't work on my computer. My computer is too ancient for it.

I'm not so sure about that. I've had migraine pain in full rage even as I dreamt. But there is a subtle difference between sleeping and being unconscious. Unconsciousness, in my experience, just feels like lost time. I would never have known for sure I had been unconscious, as opposed to merely coming to the brink of unconsciousness, if the world hadn't suddenly jumped forward in time. And then there's the stories you hear about people in comas dreaming or otherwise being aware and doctors mistaking paralyzed people as unconscious.

Still, if someone is going to consent to be killed, or if you are just going to murder someone in cold blood because you don't think their life is worth anything, there are less painful, or at least quicker, ways of doing it. The only argument for dehydration and starvation is that they're passive and thus makes physicians feel less like murderers. Ridiculous reasoning, really. Why should the patient have to suffer more just to ease the physician's conscience so he can say to himself, "I didn't really kill him. I just didn't prevent him from dying."

[Anna]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

In the Netherlands, apparently 4 out of 5 euthanasias are voluntary. Although of those 4 out of 5, I can't tell you how many thought it was their right to die and how many merely saw it as a duty. Which still leaves 1 out of 5 involuntary.

http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland/

[Kevin]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Anna]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

If you're too lazy to read, perhaps you should be watching the telly, rather than hanging around on a forum where the primary mode of communication is written.

Or is there a specific point you do not understand?

[Zoloft]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

If you're too lazy to read, perhaps you should be watching the telly, rather than hanging around on a forum where the primary mode of communication is written.

Or is there a specific point you do not understand?

We're used to Abd just sloughing off tl;dr politely. It's refreshing to see you bite someone's head off the way I would.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you're too lazy to read, perhaps you should be watching the telly, rather than hanging around on a forum where the primary mode of communication is written.

Hello, mama! How would you like to communicate with me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Abd]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

[NuclearWarfare]

Not going to lie, a lot of your post was tl;dr. But I saw you citing The Huffington Post for something medical related. You realize that a website promotes homeopathy and autism/vaccination linkage, among many other ridiculous things, isn't exactly the best kind of website to be using to promote yourself as an honest broker of The Truth, right?

[Anna]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

Not bad. However, I believe the word I used was "sloppy", rather than stupid. And you completely missed the part about the lives of elderly and disabled people in the Netherlands and elsewhere hanging in the balance.

[Anna]

Not going to lie, a lot of your post was tl;dr.

As I told the other guy, if you're too lazy to read, you probably should be watching the telly. I have heard rumors that Doctor Who is very entertaining. I'm not your nursemaid. Find someone or something else to entertain you.

But I saw you citing The Huffington Post for something medical related. You realize that a website promotes homeopathy and autism/vaccination linkage, among many other ridiculous things, isn't exactly the best kind of website to be using to promote yourself as an honest broker of The Truth, right?

If you had read it, you would have seen it had more to do with the legal and ethical issue of consent. Regardless of what the woman's personal beliefs may or may not have been, it doesn't give religious fanatic doctors the right to hold her hostage against her will.

[Milton Roe]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

Of course they can. But that happens even when the person becomes too ill or demented to control their own care, and you see adult children or grandchildren back off and use hospice as a last resort.

SCENARIO:

Your 77 y.o. grandfather is demented from multiple small strokes. He doesn't recognize you. He can feed himself if food is put before him, but now eats less, and lately has started to choke. Time for a stomach tube. He is even choking on thickened Ensure.

Okay, you can leave him in the nursing home at $70,000 a year until your inheritance is gone, or you can do what he either put in his living will, or else told you verbally many years ago. Which is: I don't ever want to live like that. Maybe (inject cynical note) if it's your money, rather than the government's money, you'll remember somewhat faster that he told you that, long ago. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Strange how the memory works.

But again, have YOU filled out YOUR advanced directives? I'll bet not. Thinking about the particulars of your own death is worse than gearing up to do this year's income taxes. We all know that.

If you take him home (still using hospice, which is a program in the US, not just a place), he'll sit in bed and somebody will change his diapers and keep him comfortable, but he'll still choke, still won't eat or drink enough, and eventually he'll aspirate food enough to get pneumonia, or else begin to go into dehydration shock. At no point does he look uncomfortable-- just more and more obtunded.

This is (newsflash) how human beings die. It is the natural dying process, and more or less how all your ancestors died (if they were lucky). With morphine, it's even easier. Now-- how much are you going to interfere? Send him to the ER and demand he be put on a ventilator? Which will require a tracheostomy in two weeks? Put in that stomach tube for feeding? Start the antibiotics? If he has heart arrythmias, Medicare will be happy to pay for an automatic implantable defibrillator, and you can easily find some doctor who will put one in and bill for it. Why not? Just the way you found a doc who would fix his cataracts 5 years ago, the better to see you with. Though he didn't recognize you then, either. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Much of this is why the US spends $1.8 trillion a year in medical costs. Our system is due for bankruptcy, after which you'll have a hard time finding an aspirin for yourself, let alone an implantable defibrilator or chronic dialysis for granny. But hey, that's not here yet (it's a projection, and what do economists know?), so quit worrying and be happy. As your politician says, we don't have to make hard choices in life, because we're Americans, and Americans can do anything. Did we not put a man on the moon? We should be able to infinitely prolong people in nursing homes, since funerals are so icky. And tend to remind you that one day it will be YOUR turn.

You can always put your hands to your eyes at this point and say "la-la-la-la. No it won't." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)