Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 15:16:47 GMT -5
Hawaii became the sixth state plus the District of Columbia to pass a bill that makes medically aided death for the terminally ill law. In the state Senate the vote was 23 - 2 in favor. The state House passed the bill the other week. And the Governor says he will sign it.
The reason I'm posting this other than the interest of such a law (which by the way I am 100% for) is that most of the argument against was for religious reasons. Of the two in the Senate that voted against the bill was one who gave the following reason:
In my opinion, that is a good reason why he shouldn't be serving the public in the capacity of a law maker.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 30, 2018 17:29:48 GMT -5
Although it's not specifically written into law, the separation of church and state is a basic principle of governance in the U.S. So yes, he should be checking his religion at the door when he comes to work.
Are things right or wrong because God says so, or are they right or wrong in and of themselves?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 22:18:44 GMT -5
Religion has always informed people's ethics. I think it's unrealistic to demand that people abandon their personal convictions when they take a public office.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 30, 2018 23:51:19 GMT -5
I don't want people to abandon their convictions while in public office. But I don't want policy and law based on somebody's version of god's will either. When considering legislation, if they can't make a good argument for it without bringing god into the debate, they should vote against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Mar 31, 2018 8:57:54 GMT -5
The difficult part is for legislators to not use their power to force their beliefs on others. It's OK for those two to argue against the bill because it violates their own beliefs, but it's not a good reason to vote against it. Personal ethics based on religion are just that: personal. It's what you do or don't do. I'm partially Libertarian in many ways. I think the gov should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.
Yes, the government should be involved in defining when people are allowed to kill other people (self-defense, etc.). It's the gov's job to protect us from others. But it's not the gov's job to protect us from ourselves. This bill basically takes the gov out of the picture (you decide when and how you want to die), and I think that's a good thing. People who believe that suicide is wrong have no right to force others to follow that belief, just as people who have no problem with suicide have no right to force others to commit suicide. It's a personal choice, no need for gov involvement either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 12:48:42 GMT -5
I don't want people to abandon their convictions while in public office. But I don't want policy and law based on somebody's version of god's will either. When considering legislation, if they can't make a good argument for it without bringing god into the debate, they should vote against it. You can call it "God's will" or "personal moral stances", it's the exact same thing. God is just the origin of their moral convictions, no more no less. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 12:51:24 GMT -5
The problem with medically aided death is precisely that you're essentially asking other people to kill you, and it's absolutely the government's business to make laws telling us when and how that is allowed to happen, or whether it is allowed in the first place. I think that this is very treacherous territory ethically speaking, and personally I would want to be sure that my government considered every possible angle in this before coming down one way or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 13:15:18 GMT -5
Mcans, you have no idea what the bill says and what extreme protections are included in it. And no one will be killing someone else. Only patients deemed as mentally fit and has been counseled can this be legally allowed to happen. And the physician only supplies the lethal medication. The patient administers it to himself, so must be awake and aware. And it takes two people, one of which is not a relative and no one that will gain from any inheritance from the patient to legally testify that this is what the patient himself alone really wants. The patient must request to allow this at least two times over several weeks. It's not just call the physician and get the medication.
And it will take two physicians to diagnose the patient as terminal and has less than six months to live.
And anyone who wishes to have a long, sad, painful, death will still have the right to have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 1, 2018 15:54:17 GMT -5
All sounds OK except the "six months to live." I've seen patients who might live longer than that, but in total misery. To me it's a quality of life issue. If I could maybe live another year or two, but I'd been in severe pain and such for all that time, I'd much rather end it early. Again, that's just me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 19:48:27 GMT -5
All sounds OK except the "six months to live." I've seen patients who might live longer than that, but in total misery. To me it's a quality of life issue. If I could maybe live another year or two, but I'd been in severe pain and such for all that time, I'd much rather end it early. Again, that's just me. Fred, I understand what you're saying, but the bill would never have passed if medical aided death was expanded to a year or two. There are only five other states plus the District of Columbia that have had success in getting such a bill approved. |
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 2, 2018 7:19:46 GMT -5
Ah, someday. Like I said, my view is that the government should only be there to make sure that no one is killed or forced to die against their will. But the details of the choice should be up to the individual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 13:46:27 GMT -5
Ah, someday. Like I said, my view is that the government should only be there to make sure that no one is killed or forced to die against their will. But the details of the choice should be up to the individual. Fred, if we could safely know that it would be up to any one individual without outside pressure. That's why the safe guards, just there safe guards against murder by which I mean laws against it. |
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 2, 2018 14:08:59 GMT -5
Like i said, I agree that safeguards are needed. Just don't like the 6-month time limit. Or, for that matter, that the person have a terminal disease. I figure that if someone wants to die, no one is forcing them to do it, and they're not mentally ill, that's their business not mine or the government's. But that's just me. 8-D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 14:18:03 GMT -5
Here's a letter to the editor in our newspaper this morning. I thought it was very well thought out. I'm leaving off the writer's name.
|
|
