It’s a pity that religious extremists are so intent on controlling other persons’ lives.
I’m a big fan of self-determination, so this sort of behavior rubs me the wrong way.
BTW, I’ve drafted hundreds of Powers of Attorney for Personal Care (a.k.a. living wills). When it came to the “medicate for pain even if it may hasten death” and “pull the plug” clauses, only one client wanted to be kept alive in hope of a miracle (that person was, as you might guess, an extremely religious person). Everyone else? They strongly preferred to be kept comfortable and to be let go when the time came – in short, to pick their time in as far as the law would allow. Brittany Maynard picked her time, and should be respected for making a brave and carefully thought-out decision in the most difficult of circumstances.
The way I see it, since most people are pro-choice when it comes to end of life decisions, the law should follow, as it is beginning to do in some jurisdictions.
I’m sorry, I think you might be confused. You said that you feared death because…
And likewise…
She didn’t duck the thing you fear the most. She hastened it. She didn’t accept something, which is always better than nothing; she chose the harder path. Per you; courageous. She faced what you fear the most head-on.
But wait a moment - just now, you said;
So* you* deem death to be preferable to life, too - you would much rather die than be dying. By your logic this would render you insane - would you care to make your statement more sufficiently detailed?
It doesn’t matter; Manson would have no credibility so he’s not worth listening to on the subject. Nothing he says matters, and he could offer no useful analysis on the subject of morality.
So far in this thread, Smapti, you’ve admitted to both being a coward and contributing to the “culture of death” with your answers to hypothetical situations.
Which just proves that she was insane, and that what she needed was help, not a bottle of pills and a jurisdiction willing to let people murder themselves.
No more comments that other posters might be insane/cowardly/stupid/need-a-good-back-rub/whatever.
Stick to the actual topic and leave the personal comments out of it.
= = =
Actually, this is much more of an IMHO thread than a serious debate, but after racking up this many posts in this period of time, I am not going to foist it off on the IMHO Mods. However, if it does not turn into a genuine debate pretty soon, I am going to close it and give everyone a chance to open a new IMHO thread on the topic without the baggage this thread is dragging around.
So you agree she was courageous? She faced the thing you fear the most head-on?
No, you wouldn’t. You were quite clear; dying is the scary part of death. Living forever would mean, were you to find yourself with some long-term health problems, you would be dying forever. You’d experience the scary part of death forever.
Sure you are. In fact, you’re going to pussy out of far more trivial things than that, as evidenced (for example) by your future presence on any thread other than the one dedicated to proclaiming your cowardice, fascism, and idiocy.
Straight into the big nothingness, which is the thing you cannot conceive anything more scary than being. You even described it back then as “you just fall asleep and never wake up again”. That’s what she did. So. Courageous!
So what? Dying is the scary part of death,* not *the death part, as you said. You’re not doing the non-scary part. You’d be experiencing the scary part of death forever, by your own words.
The scary part of death is scary because it’s followed by the big nothingness. Take away the nothingness and the dying part just becomes an inconvenience.
Ah, ok. So given that Maynard had two options, dying - a mere inconvenience - and immediate death - horrifying, terrifying, the truly scary part of death - and she picked the latter, the harder option, makes her courageous, correct?