Healthy Males Euthanized in Europe
Euthanasia, the other abortion.
Some headlines say "Twins brothers KILLED by doctors after seeking euthanasia"
Isn't that overblown? The doctors didn't kill the twins, not in the manner which the publications seek to express.
The brothers were healthy other than the fact they were apparently going to lose their eye sight.
The questions!
1.If we do not own our lives, are we really free?
2.Should a person's desire to die be beyond the influence or control of religious, social, and political lobbies/institutions?
3.Why should a person be slave to oppressive religious 'values' or invasive government policy? Especially if the suffering person is not a member of that religion/political party?
Link: [link]
Fun times here!
Some people apparently do not understand euthanasia laws in Belgium.
But, in their defense, it is an American conservative board, so details and facts are of course overlooked.
"Why did somebody else have to do the deed? They turned suicide into murder."
I'm not sure how it's murder when the law allows for doctor administered euthanasia.
"This outrage devalues all our lives—it says that unless you’re perfect, you are to be eliminated. I thought liberals like to think they’re the ones who care about the disabled"-Conservativegreatgrandma
I'm not sure granny read the article correctly. The brothers decided to
end their lives before going blind. The decision was not made for them.
"Good reason to not get sick or hurt in Europe."
Because if you sneeze you get killed?
"Sad that even though the Nazis were driven from Belgium so long ago, their policies towards the disabled are being willingly implemented."
Did the Nazis allow for people to opt out of life if they were suffering? That would be news to me and a sign that maybe the Nazis weren't all that bad after all
"Abortion, Islam, Communism/Socialism, Atheism. Pray for America, still the last chance for Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." -FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
Not sure how white trash connects the dots but if the pursuit of happiness no longer exists because of illness and disease why is it the same as...uh...atheism?
"ObamaCare, IMO, is the next Holocaust." -ExTexasredhead
Hahahahahahaa! Love this one. I have not read the entire Obamacare document/legislation but I am pretty sure it does not include provisions for rounding up Jews and killing them, or anyone else.
[link]
Two deaf twin brothers in Belgium were euthanized by their doctor after realizing they were going blind and would be unable to see each other ever again, their physician says.
The 45-year-old men, whose names have not been made public, were legally put to death by lethal injection at the Brussels University Hospital in Jette, on Dec. 14.
Some headlines say "Twins brothers KILLED by doctors after seeking euthanasia"
Isn't that overblown? The doctors didn't kill the twins, not in the manner which the publications seek to express.
The brothers were healthy other than the fact they were apparently going to lose their eye sight.
The questions!
1.If we do not own our lives, are we really free?
2.Should a person's desire to die be beyond the influence or control of religious, social, and political lobbies/institutions?
3.Why should a person be slave to oppressive religious 'values' or invasive government policy? Especially if the suffering person is not a member of that religion/political party?
Link: [link]
Fun times here!
Some people apparently do not understand euthanasia laws in Belgium.
But, in their defense, it is an American conservative board, so details and facts are of course overlooked.
"Why did somebody else have to do the deed? They turned suicide into murder."
I'm not sure how it's murder when the law allows for doctor administered euthanasia.
"This outrage devalues all our lives—it says that unless you’re perfect, you are to be eliminated. I thought liberals like to think they’re the ones who care about the disabled"-Conservativegreatgrandma
I'm not sure granny read the article correctly. The brothers decided to
end their lives before going blind. The decision was not made for them.
"Good reason to not get sick or hurt in Europe."
Because if you sneeze you get killed?
"Sad that even though the Nazis were driven from Belgium so long ago, their policies towards the disabled are being willingly implemented."
Did the Nazis allow for people to opt out of life if they were suffering? That would be news to me and a sign that maybe the Nazis weren't all that bad after all
"Abortion, Islam, Communism/Socialism, Atheism. Pray for America, still the last chance for Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." -FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
Not sure how white trash connects the dots but if the pursuit of happiness no longer exists because of illness and disease why is it the same as...uh...atheism?
"ObamaCare, IMO, is the next Holocaust." -ExTexasredhead
Hahahahahahaa! Love this one. I have not read the entire Obamacare document/legislation but I am pretty sure it does not include provisions for rounding up Jews and killing them, or anyone else.
[link]
Comments234
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
my opinion; if people want to opt out and die in a peaceful, dignified, and effective way, they should have that right.
(not that i'm condoning suicide; by all means, if you have issues, SEEK HELP.)
(not that i'm condoning suicide; by all means, if you have issues, SEEK HELP.)
Sounds good!
They wanted euthanasia, and I think that if someone wants that it's the duty of the doctor to help someone.
Why didn't they just kill themselves the classic way? I don't mean to sound snarky (for a change), but I really don't understand what prevented them from just committing a double suicide.
Why should they have to resort to that when the state allows for a professional to assist in the process?
That's just silly.
The state allows doctor participation so they deed is done right.
That's just silly.
The state allows doctor participation so they deed is done right.
I thought maybe there was a physical or psychological reason why they couldn't do it, especially since from what I saw in the article, they waited 2 years to have this approved and done? Could they have set a sort of pre-death will to say that the day a doctor confirms that they have gone completely blind, just put them down too? Maybe they could have had a bit more time or maybe even find a way to delay the blindness, were they able to see anything at all when they died?
I think they were in the process of going blind, not actually being blind when they died.
Since they couldn't hear, I guess they wanted to go before the blindness set in and shut them off from the world.
That family has some fucked up genes
Since they couldn't hear, I guess they wanted to go before the blindness set in and shut them off from the world.
That family has some fucked up genes
To be deprived of one sense is bad enough, to lose another? I'm not sure I can say I'd want to live that way either. I'd be pretty much down for ending my life after losing my eyesight(as an artist, a writer, an avid reader and so forth, it's pretty damn significant).
I think it should be the right of every adult to choose when to end their life, with some counseling of course.
I think it should be the right of every adult to choose when to end their life, with some counseling of course.
You can still sculpt poop without eyesight
Sure.
1.If we do not own our lives, are we really free?
No, but freedom means freedom to make the wrong choice. Because we are able to end our own lives does not mean we should. And in this case, the doctor's shouldn't have - the men were capable of finding a method of ending their lives without the aid of the doctors.
2.Should a person's desire to die be beyond the influence or control of religious, social, and political lobbies/institutions?
Religious, certainly. If somebody believes for religious reasons that suicide is wrong then what that means is that they should not end their own lives. It has no bearing on the choices of the non-religious.
3.Why should a person be slave to oppressive religious 'values' or invasive government policy? Especially if the suffering person is not a member of that religion/political party?
That's a difficult one because you have to question where government values actually become 'invasive'. The government needs some level of control over the population, or their would be no point to it. If nobody has any control, we have anarchy. There is a level at which it becomes oppressive for sure, but it's difficult to determine where exactly that is.
No, but freedom means freedom to make the wrong choice. Because we are able to end our own lives does not mean we should. And in this case, the doctor's shouldn't have - the men were capable of finding a method of ending their lives without the aid of the doctors.
2.Should a person's desire to die be beyond the influence or control of religious, social, and political lobbies/institutions?
Religious, certainly. If somebody believes for religious reasons that suicide is wrong then what that means is that they should not end their own lives. It has no bearing on the choices of the non-religious.
3.Why should a person be slave to oppressive religious 'values' or invasive government policy? Especially if the suffering person is not a member of that religion/political party?
That's a difficult one because you have to question where government values actually become 'invasive'. The government needs some level of control over the population, or their would be no point to it. If nobody has any control, we have anarchy. There is a level at which it becomes oppressive for sure, but it's difficult to determine where exactly that is.
"And in this case, the doctor's shouldn't have - the men were capable of finding a method of ending their lives without the aid of the doctors."
In Belgium the service is legal. The doctors are there to ensure a professional and painless end.
In Belgium the service is legal. The doctors are there to ensure a professional and painless end.
I still think there's something morally 'iffy' about asking another person to take your life when you're capable of doing so yourself, but the the doctors will no doubt only do so voluntarily and I can see why it's legal.
It's not morally 'iffy' if the person assisting agrees to do it and does it to make sure the process is done right. Quality control.
I would think it's an honor to help those in pain and suffering to go peace as opposed to having unskilled people try to do it themselves.
Plus it's a lot cleaner than sucking on a shotgun.
I would think it's an honor to help those in pain and suffering to go peace as opposed to having unskilled people try to do it themselves.
Plus it's a lot cleaner than sucking on a shotgun.
Deaf and blind eh? Sounds like suffering.
Going deaf is not a problem for me, I'm already am and I was born hard of hearing.
Blindness, I wish I don't have to go through loss of vision.
Going deaf is not a problem for me, I'm already am and I was born hard of hearing.
Blindness, I wish I don't have to go through loss of vision.
Yeah, I'm hearing impaired too
*fate is in their own hands...
sorry typo.
sorry typo.
I think as long as someone is an adult and can understand the concept that death is permanent then their faith is in their own hands and people need to bugger off. Medical professionals should be able to administer euthanasia, I honestly rather then then someone try to commit suicide at home and fail and end up permanently damaged or suffering much longer from the attempt.
What if you're into reincarnation?
o.o I don't know.
Yes, the term "killed" is appropriately used here, since the two gents were caused to die by delierate means.
That's not the intent of the publications though. they're not using the technical term, they're making innuendo leaning towards murder.