Allow voluntary euthanasia for those who have are immobile or have to depend at all times on others to help them.
This means that their life has reached a stage where the quality of life is no more and they needed help 24/7 just to exist.
They need not be in great pain or be at the end stage of an incurable disease.
Hunting down those who promote assisted suicide? Come on. I highly doubt any of those things will happen.
I really can't believe that people are actually going to vote for that guy. If Hill*ry gets the nomination for her party, though, it may be an amusing campaign. Tr*mp would say we couldn't have a president that had a butt like that. I'm seriously wondering what the US is coming to. I hope the young folks can pull us out of this craziness. The older ones seem to be lost in the crazy forest at the moment.
This thread had the word euthanasia in the title so I think we are floundering around a bit with different issues.
No one wants to be in the position to grant life or death. But many of us have had discussions on this forum about "How long is this going to drag on?" My Mom is 83, miserable, drags through each day of meds, insulin, sleep repeat. Her daily mantra is "How's a person supposed to live like this?" Good question......She's talked about ending her life and I think once we lose Dad to dementia or death she would probably shut down and slip away. I would respect her decision to do so. I would not lecture her on how valuable life is or how much she has to live for because when Dad is gone it's simply not true.
That would not be assited suicide but not far from it. She's has very clear DNR and living will and I may have to fend off some religious relatives from forcing life extending procedures but I would fight them with all I had to abide by my Moms wishes.
This is a morbid topic but it should be discussed and considered by anyone who's a caregiver for elders as we are all facing the issue of death and dying. It's a big part of our duties to our elders and it is incumbent upon us to do what is best for our loved ones, not prolong a horrible and agonizing life in line with our own moral or religious beliefs.
Hospitals dealing in end of life care where pain is involved often get into a cleft stick situation. My father had cancer, his body was riddled with it. His lungs filled with fluid which they had to drain, he was in pain and they gave him morphine which dehydrated him and he would die if they didn't give him a drip. They gave him a drip and his lungs filled with fluid and he was in pain.
When all the treatment for whatever disease/illness becomes cyclical I believe in my heart added morphine would give a more dignified death and the ONLY time a doctor should be given the right to make that decision. It is not for others to decide although I would still maintain they have the right to ask the doctor NOT to do this if it goes against their beliefs/culture. I think that three signatures from 3 doctors would override the need for court cases for malpractice. My father never wanted to die he wanted to live but he also didn't want to live hooked up to machines.
I want more..... I want to die once I need 24/7 care - I believe that I have a right to make that decision and I have made that decision but in the UK the courts will not allow it to happen - the only thing they can do is observe a DNR so I pray I have a heart attack when that time comes - it is my ONLY way out.
To put the boot on the other foot, when a person requests to die rather than to be left 'existing' and that they make that request sanely and in full knowledge of what existence means to them why is that so wrong? Especially if there is no religious or cultural attachment for them. I understand that those two factors will make others opposed to assisted suicide FOR THEM but equally why should their opinions impact on MY beliefs?
I have listed a myriad of conditions but basically when I can no longer be left to look after myself, when someone has to wipe my behind and feed me etc then I (note me not anyone else), I don't want to continue living and want assisted suicide. As far as I am concerned I will have lived my useful life in the way I chose and at that point I want to be allowed to die in the way of my choosing....with dignity, peacefully and alone, having been able tell my children how much I loved them and that it is now their time to shine brightly.
If this offends anyone then it wasn't intended to do so but this is my standpoint, and I have a right to have it, yet I don't have a right to have it enacted. That to me seems also unfair.
Incidentally I am in principal opposed to euthanasia with the exception as mentioned above of dealing with cyclical pain of a terminally ill patient and even then only with the family's agreement or with a previous directive. Euthanasia. again for me, is something totally different whereby the individual's choices are not necessarily taken into consideration..
If the maniacs ever take over our countries they won't have to resort to using sleight of hand to euthanize the undesirables, all of history's megalomaniacs seemed quite proud to take credit for their evil deeds.
As a Jew, I am acutely aware when political candidates blame the state of the economy on particular ethnic groups, as that is a technique that was used not only by the Nazis, but in all the other genocides you mention.
I am always less worried when progressives use political power to protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and when the rights of the incurable ill to die as they wish are carved out.
The "death panels" that were fear mongered about in a previous election are just what the Federal Government intended them to be, that is, payment for doctors to have serious conversations with their patients about what the real options were for end of life care.
History tells us that what seems the "progressive" or even radical stance in this country is the norm in a generation. The abolishing of child labor, rights for minorities, and 8 hour work day and voting rights for women were all unspeakably radical ideas in my grandmother ' s day.
Add to that the hierarchy's total hatred of Jews especially Hitler who was born into a particularly antisemitic area of Austria then it is clear that the targeted individuals who in his mind could in the first instance move him up the ladder.
Pogroms had been in existence 100 years earlier and came to the fore with the May laws introduced after Tsar Alexander III blamed Jews for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in the mid 19th century
Eugenics in its positive format was as your own Teddy Roosevelt identified a means of promoting healthy people to having more children to increase 'the quality of the gene pool'
In its negative format it removes the 'less than' FROM the gene pool via sterilisation programmes - used in the USA in the early 20th century before the Virginia Sterilization Act and Racial Integrity Act of the 1920s was enacted in the early 1920 and remained in place in one form or another until as late as 1967 and I think most of us remember the transition from segregation to integration.
During slavery and those very dark days it was quite common for slave 'owners' to breed lightness into their slave or to breed strength using the same methods that farmers use to breed animals.....they thought nothing of culling 'those who did not meet their needs' - lives were cheap
It was on these two ideas that Hitler based most of his strategies for removing the 'socialy unacceptable' completely as he revealed in Mein Kampf
I am absolutely with you though Babalou on the risk factors.I will never accept that anyone should be persecuted for their beliefs or the colour of their skin or their social capacity. I have beliefs that I rarely expound and my natural mother was a German Jewess but I was adopted into a Christian family for some very obvious reasons (if you knew the facts). In every case where there is persecution however it is always a minority who is put at risk, even more so as the movements gain momentum.
My feelings are that we should as a society who is supposed to be civilised respect others for their convictions AS LONG AS THEIR BEHAVIOUR DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ON OTHERS.
My children know my wishes and accept them but they are MY WISHES. they are not anyone else's and I would not want them to be
If you do some legitimate historical research, you'll learn not only what Babalou wrote but that there were issues which do not exist in the US that are specific to some of those genocides.
The attempted extermination of the Jews and others deemed undesirable by the Germans arose not just from a psychopathic maniac named Hilter, but also from what the Germans perceived as humiliation after WWI. In a nutshell, based on what I learned in college, that predisposed them to be susceptible to someone who promised them redemption on the world venue.
Armenia, which by the way was the first country to become Christian, was unfortunately subject to the bigotry, hostility and enmity of the ruling Turks at that time, and religious friction played a role as well. (My grandparents were some of the fortunate few who escaped.)
The "conditions" that were and may be "favorable" to genocide in various countries were political, nationalistic, arising from monarchical domination, lack of stable democratic governments, lack of infrastructure including means to educate the citizens,
The horrors initiated by the Russian Revolution and the ensuing Stalinist and Leninist atrocities arose from the monarchical situation. The monarchy (as well as similar monarchies in other countries) was able to live in lavish splendor while ordinary people were living in poverty. They were primed for revolution, and Stalin and Lenin took advantage of it to grasp control.
Even though there wasn't necessarily a genocide in France, the French Revolution arose from similar political conditions arising from centuries old monarchical domination.
As to other ethnicities you mentioned, read up on their pre-genocide history and you'll find commonalities, i.e., factors that predisposed the nation to persecution of minorities.
What you won't find is a government elected by the people and governed by laws, with political balance as was created in our Constitution, not that it's perfect by any means but it is better than a monarchy or rule by a despot.
Another example is persecution of certain minority religious groups in the Middle East. Some of those countries have been so suppressed for decades that the people can easily be lead to believe that it's the big bad America or Israel that's the cause. Rhetoric stirs the hostility of people with nothing and who've been brainwashed and threatened not to question the then existing despot.
The tragedies in Africa are especially egregious, but again, read their history and you'll discover the weaknesses, disenfranchisement, instability and other factors that were unable to prevent exploitation by specific aggressive groups.
One of the other common factors is hostility toward women, ethnic and religious groups, which if anything is more controlled by a country with a viable legal system. It's far from perfect, but it's a better, more logical and practical method of attempting to create legal balance.
The "death panels" as explained by Babalou are not the ridiculously promulgated notion by right wing extremists, many of whom I suspect are really racists who oppose a black president.
As to even the concept of genocide in contemporary America, think of the political issues that would arise from this. Politicians WANT support, and some will liberally stretch the truth to get it and stay in power. They WANT voters alive, and voting for them, not massacred by some fictitious and Orwellian society. Some politicians though, are fortunately intelligent and mature.
But the ones spreading the concept of the Nazi death squads are not in the latter category. People who fall into the trap of believing this disgusting rhetoric are exactly what fanatics want - easy followers, gullible people.
Ask yourself why any politician would support legislation, i.e., the Affordable Care Act, that would dispatch any voting constituency, any potential fundraising source. Why would they? They want to increase their base of support, which for some of them is by pandering to factions then not supportive of them. Look at Romney, Trump, Huckabee and others. They've flip flopped and changed positions so many times it's hard to know what they really believe, other than they're generally conservatives.
Intolerlance has existed for thousands of years, unfortunate as that is.
It's up to each of us to educate ourselves so we can make intelligent decisions in elections, as well as to "put our money where our mouths are" to support legitimate causes and not fall into the trap of being lured by silver tonged radicals.
That also applies to choices of religion.
It wasn't only extermination that the Nazis planned to create the "perfect Aryan Nation"...it was also by forced breeding of SS troops with women who were literally conscripted into being forced to produce more little Aryans. The Lebensborn program was horrifying and resembled something more like science fiction than reality.
To take one aspect, the usual dread (who doesn't dread it?) is the butt-wiping stage. Nobody whoops for joy at the prospect of being dependent on others for basic hygiene, the idea is revolting. But where's the cut-off point for quality of life? Is it impossible to enjoy any quality of life if you're unable to take care of your own continence? Are you going to tell that to people with severe cerebral palsy? Quadriplegic patients? People with MND who, for some reason in their own heads, still hang on in spite of knowing that at some stage they won't be able to breathe on their own let alone wipe their backsides?
Or the point where you can't recognise your own child. Dismal, and tragic - but tragic for the child, not for the person whose lost cognition. The person whose lost it may be perfectly content, having lost also all memory of her self as she used to be. If her family doesn't abandon her altogether then they will have to endure all of the sadness of that long drawn out loss; and her former self would be horrified at her condition. But her present self isn't. Her present self may be quite happy in her own little infantile world, away with the fairies. And if that person is suffering countless daily indignities - and worse, and I agree with Gershun that there is far too much of this going on now, today - then the problem is quality of care, because God knows that needs work. But, so, work on the quality of care, not on making it easier to bump off the victims of poor standards.
Cwillie is quite right about me - if my loved one were suffering agonies from metastatic bone cancer, asked me for help and we were cursed with an obdurate or 'fraidy-cat doctor, then I'd be first in line with the pillow. Actually, I suspect I'd have got rid of that doctor some time before; but just supposing. But I would also expect to have to defend that action, pleading duress and having witnesses to the patient's clear instruction, and be prepared to take the consequences. The pressure to change the law comes from people who want to end lives but are not prepared to be tried for it; and the trouble is that among that group, besides the people whose motives are pure, could be people whose motives and actions are much more dubious.
The Director of Public Prosecutions in the UK was explaining a while ago that policy at the moment is that family members who 'switch off' - he didn't put it like that, but that's the gist - their suffering loved ones will generally not be charged: not because a prosecution wouldn't succeed, but because it is not considered to be in the public interest to be bring them to trial. Heigh ho, the Great British Compromise comes to the rescue once more; and I agree that it isn't satisfactory to say we're leaving the law as it is but we probably won't use it. On the other hand, if the law retains the option of prosecution, and if the end of the line is a jury's verdict, those are safeguards that I'm happier with than nothing at all.