Drug Shortages, another Canary Keels over....Pay attention....

**jpmuscle** · 10-22-19, 19:06

Originally Posted by lsllc

The thing is, right now they may not but there is a surprising number of people who work such jobs early in life that have a significant change of heart later in life after they mature. As I said earlier, it isn’t uncommon for abortion nurses to later need counseling for assisting with abortions. Additionally, mothers of aborted children often express deep regrets later in life and seek help to deal with their despair.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok and? So what? Stop trying to tell people how to live their lives.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**lsllc** · 10-22-19, 19:08

Originally Posted by jpmuscle

Ok and? So what?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How can you have empathy for one group yet not the other?

Is it ethical to trade the suffering of one for the suffering of young, naive people?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**SteyrAUG** · 10-22-19, 19:08

Originally Posted by lsllc

Dude, I get it and I see it every day. Suffering, dying, it’s all part of living. Dogs aren’t human beings. Dogs are property.

You’re suggestion “giving him a cocktail and going to sleep” IS murder is correct. And your suggestion is to shift that act, that death into the conscious of another human being, which is not only selfish as f*ck, it’s unethical and creates a whole litany of psychological problems for those responsible for designing, producing, and dispensing said cocktail.

Look, I’m sorry your dad suffered. I truly am. I’ve seen the same thing too many times to count. I completely get it. But you’re coming off as the idealist who wants to “do something” even if it’s wrong. You’re like the “Everytown” groups who want all guns banned unless there are zero murders with guns, despite unintended consequences. I get it, you’re emotional. It sucks. It hurts. But suffering is part of life and what you’re asking for is others to violate their oaths and their ethics, and you’re certain this is the only way, consequences for others be damned.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we aren't gonna agree on a lot of things.

Dogs aren't property, it is life and life that I've accepted responsibility for so I need to make sure I do everything that is my responsibility.

Also you seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I specifically stated no doctor should be required to assist as it violates their basic oath. I'm stating the know how and method should be provided to me, I'll take responsibility for someone like my father. I'll take responsibility for my loved ones.

The ONLY thing I'm saying is that such a thing shouldn't be considered a crime. That is not emotion, that is me stating people should have the right to end their life when quality of life is gone. There is no reason to make them run out the clock and suffer.

And if such a thing were no longer a crime, then it would be legal under the right conditions for me to obtain all the things that are necessary to achieve a humane and as pain free as possible drug cocktail just like any other legal script.

I understand that you disagree with this premise, although I don't know why anyone would think terminal patients should have to suffer until the end.

**lsllc** · 10-22-19, 19:09

Seriously, I could say “so what” to those wanting to die or those suffering. Insensitive as hell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**jpmuscle** · 10-22-19, 19:10

Originally Posted by lsllc

How can you have empathy for one group yet not the other?

Is it ethical to trade the suffering of one for the suffering of young, naive people?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference is it’s not your place or my place to make the choice for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**SteyrAUG** · 10-22-19, 19:13

Originally Posted by lsllc

Finally, if your suggestion were legal, guess what? There would still be suffering. Human bodies react differently to the same substances. Because of malabsorption or differences in receptors, the same lethal cocktail that puts one person quietly to death may make the next person go into status epilepitcus. How much peace would it bring to watch your loved one seize, foam at the mouth, and choke to death on their own secretions?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you are being absurd.

First of all any person with any medical understanding would understand dosage and suitability of substance. Second, anyone who knows anything would administer a sedative / anesthesia first, which is why we don't operate on people who are awake.

And finally, everything you described is pretty much what you see with "natural death" of lots of people in hospice as they succumb to illness and / or starvation. Watching people try to breath but their radiation scarred lungs won't work anymore really isn't much worse than everything you described.

**lsllc** · 10-22-19, 19:17

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

So we aren't gonna agree on a lot of things.

Dogs aren't property, it is life and life that I've accepted responsibility for so I need to make sure I do everything that is my responsibility.

Also you seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I specifically stated no doctor should be required to assist as it violates their basic oath. I'm stating the know how and method should be provided to me, I'll take responsibility for someone like my father. I'll take responsibility for my loved ones.

The ONLY thing I'm saying is that such a thing shouldn't be considered a crime. That is not emotion, that is me stating people should have the right to end their life when quality of life is gone. There is no reason to make them run out the clock and suffer.

And if such a thing were no longer a crime, then it would be legal under the right conditions for me to obtain all the things that are necessary to achieve a humane and as pain free as possible drug cocktail just like any other legal script.

I understand that you disagree with this premise, although I don't know why anyone would think terminal patients should have to suffer until the end.

I’m not saying anyone “should have to”. But suffering is a reality.

If you’re doing it, you’re the one ending their life in your example. Not them.

And again, it’s not as easy as “here is a plan go do it” as I explained above. There are unintended consequences. What are you going to do when it doesn’t working as you hoped?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**jpmuscle** · 10-22-19, 19:48

Originally Posted by lsllc

I’m not saying anyone “should have to”. But suffering is a reality.

If you’re doing it, you’re the one ending their life in your example. Not them.

And again, it’s not as easy as “here is a plan go do it” as I explained above. There are unintended consequences. What are you going to do when it doesn’t working as you hoped?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The decriminalization of drugs and de-regulation of otherwise restrictive firearms laws would also unfortunately result in the unintended deaths of some innocent persons as well by default but that doesn’t mean they are the wrong courses of action to take.

Your emotion is clouding your objectivity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**lsllc** · 10-22-19, 20:08

Originally Posted by jpmuscle

The decriminalization of drugs and de-regulation of otherwise restrictive firearms laws would also unfortunately result in the unintended deaths of some innocent persons as well by default but that doesn’t mean they are the wrong courses of action to take.

Your emotion is clouding your objectivity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all, I’ve put an extreme amount of thought into this both in a professional capacity and from an ethical perspective.

Active participation in ending another’s life is immoral, even if you farm it out to third parties who are simply providing “plans and formulas”. If it’s so important, then realize actions have consequences. Your actions should not have consequences to others. Remember, he’s not talking just about terminally ill, but also depressed people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk