Dr. Death Dead

[TSD]

So they didnt?



Rosa Parks to name one.



Secondly, you need to rephrase your comment from "its not ok to break the law" to "its not ok to break the law unless I agree that its a good reason".



Supraman made a good comment, regarding the fact our country was formed via committing treason. By your logic we should still be under british rule, because you dont break the law.



Or by that logic, civil rights activists who refused to sit in the back of a restaurant, or sit in back of the bus, deserved to get thrown in jail because they broke the law.

 

[The Count Dante]

Whelp let's give America back to the British and swear an oath of loyalty to her royal highness. Since you know the revolution was all about breaking the law.



Just because it is a law doesn't make it right.



And this is an issue of right and wrong.

Never forget that America was founded by rich white slave owners that didnt want to pay their taxes!

 

[LordKOTL]

Never forget that America was founded by rich white slave owners that didnt want to pay their taxes!

...and said all men are created equal.

 

[The Count Dante]

...and said all men are created equal.

Or 3/5ths... Whatever...

 

[JOVE23]

Or 3/5ths... Whatever...

I wonder if Fifth Third Bank is some sort of apology for slavery?

 

[Variable]

I love how you always find a way to single me out.



Pain and suffering is certainly understood. Who wouldn't have compassion for those in such dire conditions?



Bottom line, there were laws against assisting. He broke the law knowing full well. Just because he thinks (and others like you) that it is okay to break laws because you feel it is right to do so does not mean everyone must agree with your opinion or stance. He broke laws period. The reasons why he is considered a murderer in the medical field is because many felt he broke the oath that he took.



He was a creepy person to me. Something did not seem "normal" about him from what I have read and watched. Even his background in the medical field is bizarre to the average person. He seemed to have an obsession with death.

You're absolutely right, he wasn't "normal". Normal is accepting the status quo without question. Normal is not making waves. He wasn't any of that. Like I said, he was trying to evolve an idea, trying to change things for the better. People who do that will always face some sort of oppression, because they are challenging what is accepted and considered normal in society at that given time. There will always be risk, sometimes to your own life, in doing that. All you have to do is look back at history to understand that.



Some have said that he was wrong for trying to bring attention to his cause and that's what put them off to him, his attitude. He was RIGHT to do that. That's the entire point of it. Bringing attention to something that is outdated, something that can be bettered. Showing how absurd it is that you CAN'T do this, that it's against the law to have that as simply a choice. And given the way he actually died, that he elected to not use his own "methods", further cements that. It's just about simply having the choice available for the people that want it.



There was just another example over the past weekend and a couple weeks ago, nothing at all in comparison to this (except for the underlying main idea), where people gathered at the Jefferson Memorial to dance. Dancing is against the law at the Jefferson Memorial. Keep in mind, they weren't playing music, they were listening to their own personal MP3 players or nothing at all. It all started with a couple slow dancing, basically just hugging each other and being arrested or "detained" for doing that. More people started dancing after seeing that and they were "detained" as well.



They knew they would be, they knew about the law, even through all their questions and protests, the point is to draw attention to it to the absurdity of not being allowed to dance at the Jefferson Memorial of all places. This past weekend people returned and did it again. Once again, expecting to be arrested, but they weren't. They eventually left after police dogs were brought up and they closed the Memorial down, but whether that's a "win" or a "loss" isn't the point, it's showing how stupid and ridiculous it is to have something like that be against the law in the first place.

 

[BigPete]

Nice post Variable. Think about assisted suicide like this: those people were going to kill themselves one way or another. At least those that were physically able. However, they chose to end their lives in a clinical, painl free, and clean manner. They avoided messy and painful options like a gun in the mouth, self drowning, poisoning themselves with pills, or slitting their wrists.

So all they did was commit suicide, and got help doing so. Are you going to outlaw suicide? Because that is what happened, NOT murder. They chose to end their lives. Dr.K did not choose to end their lives against their will.

If you think this is against the medical practitioner's oath then how do you explain a do not resuscitate order?

 

[Variable]

What I don't understand the most is when people do exactly what Ice Hog did, he laughed it off like it was a joke to compare to other examples like racial equality.They are both from the same idea of breaching what is acceptable and deemed "normal". And we still fail to realize it. So many, sooo many people do that, not just on this topic. They just laugh it all off. And then 50-60 years down the road, we're reading about stuff like *** marriage/rights, Dr. Kevorkian, etc and are just in awe of the stupidity that was on display en masse when we were dealing with those topics.

 

[IceHogsFan]

What I don't understand the most is when people do exactly what Ice Hog did, he laughed it off like it was a joke to compare to other examples like racial equality.They are both from the same idea of breaching what is acceptable and deemed "normal". And we still fail to realize it. So many, sooo many people do that, not just on this topic. They just laugh it all off. And then 50-60 years down the road, we're reading about stuff like *** marriage/rights, Dr. Kevorkian, etc and are just in awe of the stupidity that was on display en masse when we were dealing with those topics.

A doctor assisting someone to kill themselves is not comparable to any of the other topics you mentioned.

 

[supraman]

A doctor assisting someone to kill themselves is not comparable to any of the other topics you mentioned.

sure it does, everyone has the right to die on their own terms if possible. laws against that are wrong. it is that person's life, they have every right to end it.

 

[IceHogsFan]

sure it does, everyone has the right to die on their own terms if possible. laws against that are wrong. it is that person's life, they have every right to end it.

They sure do.... guns, pills, alcohol, thinking you are Superman and fly off a building but a doctor who has taken an oath is a completely different subject matter. If the creep was not a doctor that also changes the discussion.

 

[BigPete]

A doctor assisting someone to kill themselves is not comparable to any of the other topics you mentioned.

How? Why?



That's a nice opinion, but it's a shitty argument.

 

[supraman]

They sure do.... guns, pills, alcohol, thinking you are Superman and fly off a building but a doctor who has taken an oath is a completely different subject matter. If the creep was not a doctor that also changes the discussion.

So then explain to me the difference in asking a doctor to setup (since the patient has to pull the trigger) the drugs for suicide or blowing their brains out (which someone has to pay for the clean up).



The end result is the same. you just admitted you have no issue with suicide by the options you mentioned. So what the **** is your argument? All I can see is you just are repeating the same spoon fed shit the media told you about the guy.

 

[BigPete]

Considering the hippocratic oath has been amended and revised a number of times since (possibly) Hippocrates himself wrote it....maybe it is time to update it again.



You don't see any modern doctor swearing allegiance to Apollo, do you?



About that oath, the modern version from the 1960s written by Dr. Louis Lasagna from Tufts University, already makes no mention of assisted suicide as the previous versions did. In fact it only makes this statement:

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.

That does not say you can't/shouldn't do it as previous versions do, like here:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

and here:

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

So where were you going with the whole oath thing again?

 

[IceHogsFan]

So then explain to me the difference in asking a doctor to setup (since the patient has to pull the trigger) the drugs for suicide or blowing their brains out (which someone has to pay for the clean up).



The end result is the same. you just admitted you have no issue with suicide by the options you mentioned. So what the **** is your argument? All I can see is you just are repeating the same spoon fed shit the media told you about the guy.

What you don't get is that for some this issue has two concerns.



One is from a legal standpoint. The other is from a moral standpoint.





I often must tell myself that I am on a hockey board.........

 

[BigPete]

And by saying...you are on a hockey board...you mean that we are stupid?



At least we know how to read, research, quote, and ARGUE. You just know how to recite shit you heard on the boob tube or in conversation.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

And by saying...you are on a hockey board...you mean that we are stupid?



At least we know how to read, research, quote, and ARGUE. You just know how to recite shit you heard on the boob tube or in conversation.

No doubt. "I'm on a hockey board, so anything I may type shouldn't matter."

This forum is created for a reason. So we can root/argue about a team we like, and to take a break from it to come in this subforum to discuss our personal views on topics.



Dr. Kevorkian was indeed controversial. I also am coming up short in finding the overwhelming damnation from the majority of doctors that are glad he's gone. I'm sure there are groups of docs that argue what he did is "morally" wrong. Perhaps ethically. This issue also can pour over into those that are in comatose states. I work at a very large medical university, and I hope that perhaps with the death of Dr. Kevorkian, perhaps there may be some discussion in an open forum. I would be quite curious on the opinions if they were shared.



One of my friends lost his daughter to an accident that left her in a coma. Him and his wife made the decision to "pull the plug," which in some people's eyes is murder. I call it mercy. I just hope that I never have to be in their shoes to make such a choice.



My grandfather chose not to go on dialysis when his kidneys were failing. He just wanted to die with dignity, rather than a slow death. He was dead within 2 weeks of his decision, and I respected it. He was also a very devout catholic, so I always wondered if he was conflicted when he made the decision.



All this comes down to is the question of the sanctity of life (to some). How sacred is life when the person living it cannot enjoy it?

 

[supraman]

What you don't get is that for some this issue has two concerns.



One is from a legal standpoint. The other is from a moral standpoint.





I often must tell myself that I am on a hockey board.........

We've already determined the legal issue is wrong. hell as jack argued it might even be unconstitutional. Morally, NO ONE has the right to force their moral views on someone else. Morally if you have something against it, don't do it, but don't shove your morals down someone else's throat.

 

[Variable]

What you don't get is that for some this issue has two concerns.



One is from a legal standpoint. The other is from a moral standpoint.





I often must tell myself that I am on a hockey board.........

Well you can forget the moral bullshit, that's personal and should remain that way. So then what changes the legal standpoint? Because it's happened in these kind of cases all throughout history before. It's people like Kevorkian. People like Rosa Parks, like Martin Luther King, etc. The circumstances and topics are different from each other in my examples of course, but the main point is the same.There are those who must take that initial risk to push the evolution of whatever it is holding us back from progressing, even meaning breaking a law if that be the case. Those first people to take that plunge are almost always demonized, ostracized, persecuted and even killed. Because they chose not to be "normal".



It's the same song and dance, the same routine with how the majority of the "normal" people and especially the media deal with guys like Kevorkian. You've followed it to a tune. We put labels on them, be it creepy, lonely, odd, traitor, ****** lover, hippie, Commie, fascist, Marxist, baby killer, ******, pussy, whatever works. Whatever we'll run with. Whatever it is that best fits the circumstances. Whatever that is most convenient and, more importantly, most polarizing, the one that puts them in as much a negative light as possible, that separates them as much as possible from the "normal" people. Something that might dissuade potential supporters from being associated with that person.

 

[BigPete]

Very well said Paul.