Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen


Mortier v. Belgium, concerned a euthanasia of a 64-year-old woman with treatment-resistant depression and a personality disorder.

The state KILLED her

The appellant in the case was her son, who only learned of his mother's euthanasia the day after it was performed

You cannot support #assisteddying if you are against capital punishment.
"saying she was mentally unfit to make the choice in which case it was state murder again."

she had dementia

AD is the slippery slope
People need to realise that “assisted dying” already exists for people with money-Dignitas in Switzerland. Someone whom I knew has used them. What about the rest of us?
No, sorry, it’s really not. I refuse to accept that me being kept alive when I want to die is in any way going to save anyone from being murdered.
I do not know whether the state murdered the woman or not. But I do know it has nothing to do with the son. Often relatives are bitterly opposed to people who choose to give up their lives but it should be nothing to do with them or their feelings. If your life is not your own to do with as you please then nothing is.
she had dementia

respectfully, look into this

the son was her last advocate
Geri, with respect, you appear to be militantly anti assisted dying. You are entitled to be. But others, equally entitled, do not see the issue as you do.

I would advise any who wish to engage in assisted dying make this plain, in writing witnessed before a lawyer, and by telling their family and friends. The clearer you are about it, and as soon as possible, the less anyone, state or others, can meddle with it.

Everyone should have complete autonomy over their own life
"None of us should have autonomy. We should all operate as one organism," said Geri
Seven of Nine a character introduced in the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. Portrayed by Jeri Ryan

can't even spell her own name correctyly
I refuse to accept that me being killed when I want to live is in any way going to save anyone from inheriting my house.
I mean seriously, the presumption is going to be that you don’t want to be assisted to die unless you explicitly state you do and have witnesses etc as to your state of mind. I see the biggest problem being convincing a doctor you’re not depressed when you have a terminal condition so your wish to have AD at a point you decide is the time, can be authorised.
slippery slope xx
It really just shows that we accept state (and corporate) control over every aspect of our lives including when they end. To misquote Rousseau: people are conceived free but everywhere in chains from that point.
I find it pertinent you mention abortion because it is the same argument: may I decide what happens to my own body?

I always reply, "Yes, absolutely". And what my relative, friend, work colleague, neighbour, or fellow citizen thinks is absolutely irrelevant to that.

That also means no one should have the right to kill me as well, of course. So I don't see what the problem is.
people get DNRs all the time and it doesn’t seem to be particularly controversial - someone coerced them to sign one of whatever. What a DNR can’t do is allow you to choose the time you go. I want to choose. Someone who is concerned about over zealous relatives or whatever can equally sign something to say they can’t be assisted in dying. Makes the whole process clear for everyone.
and health inequality is an ongoing problem. I don’t think flaws in the overall system should be used to stop doing the right thing wherever we can though. This could trigger better healthcare from cradle to grave.