Http://time.com/3553770/brittany-maynard......ebmail1/

The new face of euthanasia. Her story got a lot of traction...I think it'll be a significant force in gradually changing things, for better or worse. For better, IMO; I expect that will have some strong agreement and some strong disagreement.

I found the video very disturbing. Obviously the woman in the video was not going through excruciating pain; of course I don't know what her condition was when she killed herself, or what her condition would have been had she chosen not to kill herself. All too upsetting--I really don't want to just make this some dry legal discussion.

I strongly agree with Lobo. She died with dignity and, faced with a slow and excruciating death, took control of her own fate.

May she RIP.

I guess they are giving this stuff top billing because they are looking for volunteers.

Yes, because it's all part of he plan to depopulate the world.

You should really be thinking about getting bumped off at your age. Have you got your kit ready?

I'm planning on living forever. So far, so good.

Btw, who told you my age, anyway?!

Doctor Death.

Is everything just a big joke to you? I really don't that this is a funny topic, tommy. I once knew a person who was faced with the same decision.

I support her decision. Having seen what the long drawn-out path looks like, I know I would do the same.

As is the case with many things changing in American society--all changes that the late Jerry Falwell warned us about--there seems to be little in the way of objection that doesn't somehow spring up from religious beliefs. Gay marriage, for example, is difficult to oppose without resorting to some kind of religious or orthodox or "traditional" definition of what a family is.

But America explicitly rejects religion-based Constitutional law-making. Laws which have religious foundations are ultimately doomed.

It was a sad day when conservativism forgot that the separation of church and state had its foundations in the desire to keep the state out of the pulpit rather than keeping the pulpit out of the state. Conservatives have forgotten their own history.

Yes and no. Or, not really. There's no problem whatsoever with the fact that opposition to gay marriage is in no small part religious-based. There IS a problem with the fact that it violates the Equal Protection Claise of the 14th Amendment. You can't establish or prevent exercise of a religion, but you CAN pass laws in accordance with the moral principles of your religious beliefs - in the same way that agnostics and atheists pass laws in accordance with the principles of THEIR religious beliefs - as long as they don't violate the constitution. But that violation isn't inherent in the fact that the law's support is or was based on a religious belief.

Yes, I was much too imprecise with that statement. I stand corrected.

(Except for the fact that no one is supposed to admit mistakes on Internet forums.)

Since agnostics/atheists don't subscribe to any religion, their beliefs cannot be characterized as "religious beliefs". A better wording here would have been "secular beliefs". I hope that's what you meant.


Ron

So sad. RIP Brittany Maynard...

Imho, she should've tried to break some dangerous World Record before she went.

No joke, really. She would've had nothing to lose.

Something tells me she tried to live as fully as one could with the cards she was dealt. I hope Lobo is correct that her story will cause some debate about the issue...

I actually meant "moral beliefs." Good catch.

“LONDON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - It used to be an issue just for the terminally ill. Now as populations around the world age, governments are increasingly being confronted with the taboo idea of dying as something people can volunteer to do.

"The demand for the option, if not the practice, is growing rapidly," said Dr. Philip Nitschke, 61, founder and director of the pro-euthanasia group Exit International.

The Australian doctor -- nicknamed Dr Death for his work on suicide -- is travelling the world to teach people how to end their lives safely with a suicide drug-testing kit.”

Very few will go down this path, but almost every 75-year old I meet now sees merit in having their own bottle of Nembutal in the cupboard as an insurance policy, in case things get bad," Nitschke told Reuters, referring to the barbiturate used as a sedative.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/21/idUSLB658876

That’s just one of many. If you look you find this stuff is in the news and loads of it and often now.. It’s in all the papers. Its being given top billing, as they say.

Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person - supposedly. However who else benefits who might put the sick and elderly under pressure to be bumped off and promoting it? Has anyone mentioned money yet? Is the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life the elephant in the room?

We're all terminally ill; most of us just don't know the details.

I read an article last night concerning the drugs she took. In another thread on this site, the death penalty was being discussed (in part). I am curious how the drugs she took were adequate to end life, yet there have been any number of lawsuits brought against the "cocktails" various states use for lethal injection. Perhaps someone like Mr. Cassidy could clarify this for me? Is it simply a matter that one is "voluntary, a choice" while the other is "enforced, a punishment"?